Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The respondent Zila Parishad enhanced the rent of the respective shops vide Memo No. 474 dated 19.06.2012 and 586 dated 21.08.2012 to Rs. 700/ - per month from Rs. 300/ - per month (Annexure -2 series). Petitioners have challenged the enhancement alleging that it has been done without any prior consent or opportunity to them. Enhancement is also assailed on the ground of being very high while petitioners are undertaking business for their livelihood from shops allotted to them. They have also complained about lack of other facilities like toilet, etc. and made representations vide Annexure -3 series, which according to them, have never been considered. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court.
(2.) Respondents in their counter affidavit, have justified the enhancement undertaken after ten years from the prevalent rate of Rs. 300/ - per month to Rs. 700/ - per month after conducting an inquiry about the rent prevailing in the locality. Report of the District Board Engineer (Annexure -B) shows that marriage hall behind the shops are let out at Rs. 1500/ - per day for marriage and other occasions. Rates were enhanced to Rs. 700/ - per month after notice upon all the petitioners vide Memo No. 474 dated 19.06.2012 and 586 dated 21.08.2012. Respondents have also enclosed an undertaking submitted on affidavit by the individual shop owners as Annexure -A series that they shall abide all the rules and regulations laid by the authority of Zila Parishad, Jamtara.
(3.) From perusal of the affidavit such as at Annexure -A series, it is apparent that petitioners are paying rent at Rs. 300/ - per month and had deposited lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/ - on 13.11.2002 itself. On pointed query made to the learned counsel for the petitioners, though exact date or year of allotment of shop is not categorically answered, but from the enclosed Annexure -1 series to the writ petition and affidavit at Annexure -A series to the counter affidavit, it can be safely drawn that petitioners are in occupation of shops on rent for sufficiently long time before this exercise has been undertaken. The enhancement if at all undertaken after ten years from Rs. 300/ - per month to Rs. 700/ - per month, cannot be said to be arbitrary or astronomical to hold it as disproportionate. Petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted before such exercise. They have also bound themselves by their undertaking to abide by the decision of the respondent authority of Zila Parishad. On being scrutinized on legal grounds available under judicial review, enhancement was open for interference only if it was found to be unreasonable, without backing of proper exercise of ascertaining prevalent rates in the locality or was astronomical to hold it as disproportionate. In such circumstances, petitioners who are enjoying the shops on rent under Zila Parishad, Jamtara, cannot complain of such reasonable enhancement in rent undertaken after ten years. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order. Respondents would however permit the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent in suitable installments and would not take recourse of imposition of penalty for the delay in making payments in view of interim order dated 06.02.2013 passed in their favour in the present case. Writ petition is however dismissed with the aforesaid observations. I.A. No. 948 of 2016 is also closed.;