IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1153 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2835 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ram Charittar Pd. Sah @ Ram Chalittar Sah S/o Late Mahavir Sah R/o Lakhman Misthan Bhandar, Tower Chowk, P.S. & Distt.- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga 3. The Collector, Darbhanga 4. The S.D.O. (House Controller) Sadar, Darbhanga 5. Baidyanath Khandelwal S/o Late Satya Narayan Khandelwal, R/o Tower Chowk, P.S. & Distt.- Darbhanga. .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, S.C.-25 Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, A.C. to S.C.-25 For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Baidyanath Khandelwal (in person) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 7. 12-01-2012 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10th May 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 2835 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Claus”
2. Patna High Court LPA No.1153 of 2011 (7) dt.12-01-2012 2/3 of the Letters Patent. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Thakur has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the matter at dispute is a house property. The respondent no.5 claims title over the house property on the strength of a will made by the original landlady, one Mrs. Devrani. However, the application for probate made by the respondent no.5 has yet not been granted. Since the death of the landlady the appellant tenant has purchased the disputed property from her natural heir, her daughter. Thus, the appellant and the respondent no.5 both claim ownership of the disputed property. The title suit filed by the respondent no.5 is also pending. The respondent no.5 filed the application for determination of Fair Rent under Section 5 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. After a round of litigation, the said application has been allowed on 24 th August 2005. Challenge to the said order in revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 26 of the Act has been rejected as being time barred. The order of the Divisional Commissioner has been upheld by the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. At the outset we may note that although the writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of an appropriate writ, the petition was essentially filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over the order of the Divisional Commissioner. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Thakur fairly concedes that an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order made on a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1153 of 2011 (7) dt.12-01-2012 3/3 The Appeal is dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. We clarify that we have not pronounced upon the rights of the parties. This order shall not preclude any of the parties from pursuing the available statutory remedy. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Pawan/-