S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SHOP No. 6 at Bharucha Mansion was taken on lease in the name of Sardana & Company on 01.01.1958 at monthly rent of Rs. 100/ - for the period between 01.01.1958 and 31.12.1958. The lease agreement was executed between the father of the petitioner and one Mr. Fareddon K.M. Bharucha. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 16.08.2002 was signed between the petitioner's firm and the representative of M/s. F.K.M. Bharucha whereunder, it was agreed to revise the rent of the tenanted premises as per the schedule. It was provided that the rent up to the period 31.12.2008 would be @ Rs. 2100/ - per month and thereafter, it would be increased by 15% every four years. The first increment was due on 01.01.2009. An application under Section 5 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act was filed in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate -cum -Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur which was registered as HRC Case No. 46 of 2007. The plaintiffs prayed therein for fixation of fair rent @ Rs. 80 per sq. ft. The House Rent Controller passed order dated 03.03.2009 revising the rent from Rs. 2100/ - to Rs. 16200/ -, that is, Rs. 50 per sq. ft per month. The appeal and revision, both were dismissed and therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 8 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 provides that fair rent of a building shall be determined in accordance with Rules framed for the said purpose. Section 8(1)(c) mandates that the Controller shall have due regard to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances. It further provides that increased cost of repairs and the general increase in the cost of a site and building construction, if the building has been constructed after 01.12.1980 have to be considered for determining the fair rent. However, without considering the report of the Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum dated 10.04.2008 whereunder, the Inspecting Officer recommended fair rent between Rs. 7 to Rs. 9 per sq. ft. per month, the Rent Controller has fixed the fair rent @ Rs. 50 per sq. ft. per month. It is further submitted that though the MoU was to expire on 31.12.2008, the application under Section 5 of the Act was filed on 02.11.2007 itself and thus, in terms of Rule 3(ii)(g) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1983 [as adopted by the State of Jharkhand] the application under Section 5 was required to be decided in terms of MoU dated 16.08.2002. Referring to the contention that during the currency of MoU dated 16.08.2002, the application under Section 5 could not have been decided, I find that the House Rent Controller has passed final order on 03.03.2009 and the fair rent fixed by the said order is payable from the date of the order whereas, the MoU dated 16.08.2002 lapsed on 01.01.2009 and therefore, the monthly rent fixed in the said MoU is not affected by the order passed in HRC Case No. 46 of 2007. The Controller has found that the premises in question, that is, Shop No. 6 is situated on the ground floor of Bharucha Mansion. The said building was constructed in the year, 1935 and it is located in an important commercial area of Bistupur. The monthly rent of the shops in that area is ranging between Rs. 37 to Rs. 123 per sq. ft. per month. The Controller has also taken note of the rent paid by Reliance Retail Limited which entered into a rent agreement in the year, 2007 in which the monthly rent of Rs. 123.60 per sq. ft. per month is fixed. It has been noticed that the Bharucha Mansion is on the main road near the building in which Reliance Retail Limited is located. The appellate court has also recorded a finding that the Bharucha Mansion is in the heart of Bistupur and it is situated in front of Bistupur Police Station. The revisional court has noticed that all necessary amenities are available in the Bharucha Mansion. The appellate as well as the revisional court has not found any procedural lapse in determination of fair rent. Section 8(1)(c) of the Act provides for considering the prevailing rate of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances. The Enquiry Officer has taken note of rent paid for few other shops however, the date of tenancy is not indicated therein. It is not disputed that the prevalent rent paid by other shopkeepers in the locality is between Rs. 37 to Rs. 123. The expression "for the same or similar accommodation" under Section 8(1)(c) would not include only the old tenancies in the area because Section 8(1)(c) mandates consideration of "prevailing rates of rent" which would include the recent tenancies also. The fact that for some of the shops in the locality the rent paid per month is between Rs. 2.16 per sq. ft. to Rs. 8.30 per sq. ft. per month, is not conclusive for fixing the prevailing rate of rent in the locality. I find that the provisions of the 2000 Act and the procedure in the 1983 Rules have been followed by the Controller. The issue is concluded by the concurrent findings of fact which are not under challenge.
(3.) CONSIDERING the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;