RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners (referred as 'tenant') have challenged the order 16.6.1998 (Annexure 4) passed by the Controller, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4) in H.C. Case No. 2 of 1998, enhancing the rent of the tenanted premises in occupation of the tenant; the order dated 17.12.1999 (Annexure 5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) in H.C. Appeal No. 2 of 1999 by which the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it was time barred and that the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent as per the provision; the order dated 1.12.2000 passed in the said H.C. Appeal No. 2 of 1999, rejecting the tenant's application for review of the said order dated 17.12.1999; and also the order dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure 6) passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) in H.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001, dismissing the said revision petition.
(2.) THE relevant facts in short are as follows. The tenant filed H.C. Case No. 3 of 1987 for fixation of fair rent, complaining that enhancement of rent from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 350/ - per month was illegal. The Controller by order dated 30.1.1988 fixed Rs. 250/ - per moth as fair rent. The respondent No. 5 (referred as 'landlord') preferred H.C. Appeal No. 1 of 1988 against the said order, which was remanded by order dated 24.9.1992 for fixing the rent taking into account the relevant facts including the rent prevalent in the surroundings. On remand, the Controller fixed Rs. 400/ - as fair rent by order dated 4.2.1994 with effect from January, 1987. Against the said order, the tenant preferred H.C. Appeal No. 3 of 1994 and the landlord preferred H.C. Appeal No. 2 of 1994. Both the appeals were disposed of by the order dated 7.9.1994 dismissing the tenant's appeal for non -compliance of the order passed in the said appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act, directing the petitioner to deposit the rent determined by the Controller during the pendency of the appeal; and allowed the appeal of the landlord enhancing and fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. Against the said order dated 7.9.1994, the tenant preferred revisions before the Commissioner on 30.11.1994 which were registered as H.C. Revision Nos. 152 and 153 of 1994. During the pendency of the said revisions, the landlord filed a fresh application on 25.3.1998, for fixing fair rent, from March, 1998 onwards, being H.C. Case No. 2 of 1998. By order dated 16.6.1998, the Controller fixed fair rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - with effect from April, 1998, though the recommendation of the Circle Officer was for fixing Rs. 2000/ - per month. Against the said order dated 16.6.1998, the tenant filed H.C. Appeal No. 2 of 1999. The landlord filed petition under Section 16 of the Act for deposit of rent. On 17.12.1999, the tenant did not appear and after hearing the landlord, the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that not only it was time barred, but the tenant did not pay rent also as per Section 16 of the Act. The tenant filed petition for restoration/review which was rejected on 1.12.2000. Against the said order dated 1.12.2000, the tenant filed revision before the Commissioner being H.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 which was dismissed on 25.10.2002. In the meantime, the said H.C. Revision No. 152 of 1994 filed by the tenant was dismissed on 27.3.1999, upholding the said order dated 7.9.1994 fixing fair rent at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month with effect from January, 1987.
(3.) MR . L.K. Lal, appearing for the tenant, submitted that during pendency of an earlier proceeding, the subsequent proceeding initiated by the landlord for enhancement/fixation of fair rent was not maintainable; and that the landlord did not make out any case under Section 7 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, the aforesaid orders passed on such application were illegal and without jurisdiction.;