S/L 26 21.07.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 19756 of 2025 Abdur Rashid Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kazi Sajjad Alam Mr. Mainul Thander …for the petitioner. Ms. Sudipa Banerjee Mr. Nripendra Pratap Singh …for the State. 1. The affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Birbhum dated June 2, 2025 wherein the District Magistrate has calculated the rent of the premises of the petitioner which was let out by the petitioner to the Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices. The respondent no. 3 while calculating the rent has relied upon the guidelines dated April 29, 2013 and has calculated the monthly rent of the premises with effect from February 1, 2023 keeping in view of the last assessment of the rent was made on February 1, 2018 which was expired on February 1, 2023. 3. The respondent no. 3 by considering the guidelines of April 29, 2023 has enhanced the rent of Rs. 33,211/- from February 1 each year and assessment was valid for the next five years that is February 1, 2028 until further guidelines, if any, issued by the Government. 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the first issue that the respondent no. 3 has fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 33,211/- with effect from February 1, 2018 for five year but the department is still paying an amount of Rs. 19,469/- instead of Rs. 33,211/-. The petitioner is further aggrieved with the calculation made by the respondent no. 3 and submits that as per the guidelines dated April 29, 2013 the existing rent is to be enhanced at the rate of 20 per cent of every three years and the enhanced rent will continue for nine years but the respondent no. 3 has considered the enhance rent at the rate of 5 per cent. He submits that the calculation made by the respondent no. 3 is erroneous and is required to be rectified. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The respondent no. 3 has passed the following order for fixing the rent of the premises of the petitioner which read as follows: “12. I find that the calculation of rent, as above, is in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines dated 29.04.2013 of the Land and Land Reforms Department. The above calculated monthly rent for the premises in issue shall be effective from 01.02.2023 retrospectively keeping in view that the last assessment of rent was made on 01.02.2018, which was to expire on 01.02.2023. As per the aforesaid guidelines dated 29.04.2013 annual enhancement of the said rent of Rs. 33,211.00 shall be made @ 5% on 1st February of each year and the assessment shall be valid for the next five years viz. 01.02.2028 or until further 3 guidelines, if so issued by the Government, whichever is earlier.” 7. Clause 2 of the Scheme dated April 29, 2013 reads as follows: “2. Considering the rapid hike of rate of rent in the market, the rent shall be enhanced upto 20% of the present rent after every three years instead of existing 20% after every five years. Enhancement of rent shall be made automatically after expiry of every three years from the date of possession. Application from the house owner for enhancement of rent is not mandatory. The maximum permissible limit of increase of rent after expiry of a period of three years shall be 20%. The enhancement of rent may be made three time consecutively and then the rent shall be assessed afresh after 9 years (three consecutive terms) if the same hiring department continues occupying the same premises.” 8. As per the said paragraph no. 2 of the Scheme of 2013 every three years the existing rent is to be increased 20 per cent instead of five years and the enhanced rent may be made three times consecutively afresh after the period of nine years. In the present case, the respondent no. 3 has considered the enhanced rent at the rate of 5 per cent instead of 20 per cent. The respondent no. 3 has considered the period of five years instead of three years. 9. Accordingly, from the face of records this Court finds that the calculation made by the respondent no. 3 is erroneous. Accordingly, the impugned order dated June 2, 2026 is set aside and quashed. 4 10. The matter remanded back to the respondent no. 3 with the direction to consider the request of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration of the Scheme of April 29, 2013 as mentioned in paragraph no. 2 and to pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. WPA 19756 of 2025 is disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)