JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.05.2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal Alwar, whereby the Rent Tribunal had fixed the revised rent as Rs. 293/- per month from 01.01.2003, and Rs. 302/- per month from 01.01.2004 on the basis of rent agreed upon by the parties on 01.01.1994. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23.09.2004 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar whereby the Appellate Rent Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Rent Tribunal. 2. The facts of the case are that on 01.10.1972 the respondent had taken a shop from the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The rent was thereafter increased upto Rs. 175/- per month from 01.01.1994. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Tribunal Alwar for revision of rent. The Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 21.05.2004, fixed the revised rent as Rs. 293/- per month from 01.01.2003 and from 01.01.2004 as Rs. 302/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of Rent Tribunal dated 21.05.2004, before the appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar. The appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar, vide order dated 23.09.2004 confirmed the order of the Rent Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 21.05.2004 and 23.09.2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court. 3. Mr. D.D. Patodiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act', for short), the rent can be increased taking into account the rent payable "at the. time of commencement of the tenancy". However, neither the Rent Tribunal, nor the Appellate Rent Tribunal have considered the fact that the tenancy commenced on 01.10.1972 and not on 01.01.1994. Therefore, they should have taken the commencement of tenancy as on 01.10.1972. Thus, the rent had to be revised on the basis of rent payable on 01.10.1972. 4. Mr. J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveal that the rent payable has been taken from 01.01.1994, whereas the tenancy had actually commenced on 01.10.1972. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveal that the rent payable has been taken from 01.01.1994, whereas the tenancy had actually commenced on 01.10.1972. Section 6(1)(b) clearly states that "where the premises have been let out on or after 1st January, 1950, the rent payable at the time of commencement of the tenancy shall be liable to be increased at the ate of 5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the rate of 5% per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of this Act." Obviously, in the present case, the tenancy commenced on 01.10.1972 and not on 01.01.1994. Therefore, both the Courts below' have committed error in revising the rent taking the tenancy to have commenced on 01.01.1994. In these circumstances, this Court remands the case to the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar on 25th May, 2009. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Alwar is directed to decide the case within a period of two months.With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******