ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.) Shop in question was let out to the petitioner vide lease deed dated 19.5.2000. The ground rent was initially fixed at the rate of Rs. six per sq. feet per annum as contemplated in the Clause 1 of the lease deed, Annexure No. 1. In the year 2010, respondent-landlord had moved a petition for fixation of fair rent under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982('Act', in short) which was registered as B.B.C. Case No. 39 of 2010. During the pendency of the case before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent, Corporation-landlord having consulted different tenants, decided to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month which led the petitioner to move an application in a pending case for the fixation of fair rent stating therein that landlord has enhanced and fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month, therefore, case for fixation of the fair rent must be dropped. During the pendency of the case, Corporation locked the shop on 30.7.2011. Petitioner had to file W.P.C. No. 4166 of 2011, Rakesh Kumar Rajak vs. Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation before this Court challenging the action of the Corporation-landlord locking the shop. Realising the mistake, Corporation decided to unlock the shop and a statement was made in this Court in W.P.C. No. 4166 of 2011 that Corporation would remove the lock and hand over the peaceful possession to the petitioner within a week. Having recorded the statement of the Corporation this Court vide order dated 19.9.2012 disposed of the writ petition as such. Possession of the shop was handed over to the petitioner after opening the lock on 24.10.2012. Meanwhile, case filed by the Corporation for fixation of fair rent was dropped vide judgment dated 16.9.2011 on the basis of the statements made by different tenants including the petitioner that Corporation has enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month, therefore, there is no need to fix the fair rent. Corporation has issued the impugned notice dated 22.10.2012, Annexure No. 7 asking for the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month. Foeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Sections 4 & 5 of the Act has vehemently argued that corporation has absolutely no jurisdiction to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet unilaterally. He has further submitted that rent can be enhanced as per the direction of the Rent Controller under Section 5 of the Act only.
(2.) As observed hereinabove, Corporation had moved an application for the fixation of the fair rent before the Rent Controller and during the pendency of the case for fixation of fair rent, Corporation, having consulted different tenants had proposed to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month. Having received the proposal to enhance the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month, petitioner did not oppose the enhancement, rather he himself had moved an application in the pending case of fixation of fair rent to drop the proceeding. In view of this, an inference can be drawn that petitioner was apprehensive that Rent Controller might fix the rent on the higher side, therefore, had accepted the enhanced rent and consequently had himself made a request to the Rent Controller not to proceed the case in view that landlord had enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. thirty per sq. feet per month.
(3.) There is no doubt that landlord cannot enhance the rent unilaterally, but landlord and tenant may agree to enhance the rent as per the mutual consent and in the event of mutual consent, there is no need to move the Rent Controller under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of fair rent.;