JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the vires of Section 2(3) (vii) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 as well as proviso (c) to Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The petitioner has, also, prayed that the respondents may be restrained from interfering and collecting the enhanced rent of Rs. 133/- per month from the petitioner as well as from dispossessing the petitioner from the house in question. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has given-up his challenge to the vires of the provisions of Section 2(b)(vii) of the Act, 1964 as well as his challenge to proviso (c) to Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950 and limited his arguments only to the enhanced rent of the suit premises from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 133/- per month and for quashing the notices Annexure.3 and Annexure.5 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner, by which the demand at the enhanced rate has been made. 3. The petitioner is the lessee in House No. 5 of Rajratan Bihariji Temple situated in the town of Bikaner. This property is owned by the Devasthan Department, Bikaner. A lease deed with respect to this house was entered into between the petitioner and the Devasthan Department on 18-4-81 and the lease amount was agreed at Rs. 40/- per month. In the year 1979-80, the Devasthan Department increased the lease of the premises held by the various lessees/tenants. The tenants challenged the enhancement of the rent before the High Court and the High Court, in Hari Kishan and Thirty-four Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1982 WLN (UC) 303 , while allowing the writ petition filed by these thirty-five tenants, held that the rent can be enhanced with the mutual consent but the respondents can resolve the termination of the tenancy in accordance with law and thereafter proceed to initiate the eviction proceedings in accordance with law if they so like. After the decision in the writ petition filed by Hari Kishan and thirty-four other persons, the matter for the enhancement of the rent was taken-up by the Department and the notices were issued to all the lessees and a meeting was held on 25-1-85 which was attended to by the Additional Collector, Bikaner, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Bikaner, Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner, Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur and twenty-two of the lessees including the petitioner and certain decisions were taken for revising the rent of the various premises and the revised rent were proposed and the tenants were asked to file objections if they had any, and a decision was, also, taken to hold meetings temples-wise. In pursuance to the decision taken in the meeting held on 25-1-85, the second meeting was held on 7-2-85. The notice of the second meeting was given to the petitioner, also, who refused to accept the notice, which is clear from Annexure R.4. As no objections were received in the meeting held on 7-2-85 against the increase of the rent of the residential premises, the proposal for the increase of the rent with respect to the residential premises, as proposed in the meeting dated 25-2-85, was accordingly put before the Rent Determination Committee in its meeting held on 25-3-85 and the Rent Determination Committee, in its meeting held on 25-3-85, approved the increase in the rent proposed in its meeting dated 7-2-85. In pursuance to the determination of the rent of the petitioner's residential premises, also, the notice Annexure.3 was issued to him intimating him the revised rate of the rent, which has been challenged by the petitioner by this writ petition. 4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rent cannot be enhanced with retrospective effect and it can be enhanced prospectively and, therefore, the Demand of the rent from the petitioner at the enhanced rate with effect from 1-12-82 is, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the Demand raised by the respondents. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner, in pursuance to the notice issued by the Devasthan Department, attended the meeting on 25-1-85, in which a decision was taken for enhancing the lease money/rent and the rates were, also, proposed. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner, in pursuance to the notice issued by the Devasthan Department, attended the meeting on 25-1-85, in which a decision was taken for enhancing the lease money/rent and the rates were, also, proposed. The lessees were asked to file objections, if they had any, with respect to the enhanced lease amount and the next meeting was held on 7-2-85 in which inspite of service of notice the petitioner did not appear and after discussion of the matter with the representative of the lessees, the matter for enhancement of the rent was referred to the Rent Determination Committee and the Rent Determination Committee, in its meeting held on 25-3-85, approved the enhanced lease amount and the lease amount of the premises leased-out to the petitioner was, also, enhanced from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 133/- per month. The decision was taken by the Committee on 25-3-85 and the rent can be enhanced only with effect from the date which has been agreed upon. The decision was taken in the meeting held on 25-3-85 and, therefore, the enhanced rent cannot be charged from the petitioner retrospectively and the petitioner is liable to pay this amount of enhanced rent from 25-3-85 and not earlier to this date. 7. The notice issued against the petitioner demanding the enhanced rent from the period prior to 25-3-85, therefore, deserves to be quashed. But, however, the petitioner is liable to pay the lease amount @ Rs. 133/- per month with effect from 25-3-85. 8. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor cobbler and is engaged in the profession of shoes and the arrears of rent amount has become so high that it has become difficult for him to make payment of the rent amount in lump sum and, therefore, he maybe given liberty to make payment of the said amount of the rent in three instalments spreading over in one year. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the poor financial position of the petitioner, we think it proper to allow the petitioner to make payment of the arrears of rent in three instalments spreading over one year provided the petitioner continues to pay the lease amount at the enhanced rate of Rs. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the poor financial position of the petitioner, we think it proper to allow the petitioner to make payment of the arrears of rent in three instalments spreading over one year provided the petitioner continues to pay the lease amount at the enhanced rate of Rs. 133/- per month, month by month. If the petitioner starts paying the lease amount at the enhanced rate then the petitioner is permitted to make payment of the arrears of rent in three instalments - the first instalment of Rs. 4000/- will be payable on or-before 1-12-95, the second instalment of Rs. 4000/- will be payable on or before 1-4-96 and the last instalment of the balance amount will be payable by 1-8-1996. If the instalments are not paid by the petitioner within the stipulated period or two consecutive payment of the rent is not paid by him then the respondents will be entitled for the interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears of rent. 9. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is, therefore, disposed of with above observations.Petition disposed of. *******