ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.
(2.) This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- "That the petitioner prays for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the order dated 01.10.2010 passed in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 09/98-99 in case of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Dumka v. Vishwanath Singhania and Vijay Singhania by the Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division at Dumka , as a revisional authority under the provisions of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Act) wherein and where under the Divisional Commissioner by exercising his power of revisional authority under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 confirmed the order dated 07.10.1998 passed in H.R.C.A. Case No. 1/96-97 by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, the appellate authority under the said Rent Control Act who had in the said order confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 29.12.1995 passed in B.A. Case No. 08/89-90 in case of Vishwanath Singhania and Others v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Dumka . Petitioner further prays for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the said order of Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division at Dumka dated 01.10.2010 passed in Case No. HRCR 09/98-99 and order of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 07.10.1998 passed in HRCA Case No. 1/96-97 and order of the learned S.D.O.-cum-Rent Controller dated 29.12.1995 passed in B.A. Case No. 08/89-90. Petitioner further prays that the excess of amount deposited by the petitioner under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 30.10.1998 as and when the same on calculation be found in excess of the amount of rent due to the petitioner determined under the and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the said Rent Control Act. Petitioner further prays that the operation of the impugned order and the proceedings of the Execution Case No. 01/2011 pending before the Rent Controller may kindly be stayed till the disposal of this writ petition."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Deoghar which is dated 29.12.1995 wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the enhanced rent @ Rs. 5370/- for the period from 01.04.1990 to 31.05.1998. He submits that originally the rent was @ Rs. 484/- per month and it has been enhanced to Rs. 5370/- @ Rs.1.50 per square feet. Learned counsel submits that so far as petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has also let out the various property in the Bazar Samiti and the rent realized by the petitioner was much less as what has been fixed by the impugned order. He submits that the provisions of Section 8 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1981 has been properly taken into consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Deoghar. He submits that the rent could have been enhanced to more than 25% as per the mandate of section 8 of the aforesaid Act. He submits that the said order has been subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority and also by the revisional authority and both the appellate order as well as the revisional orders are under challenge. He submits that the impugned orders are perverse and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that that during the pendency of the litigation certain amount has been paid by the petitioner.;