JUDGMENT : Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, who is tenant in the premise, of which respondent Smt. Manju Bansal is landlord. Tenancy commenced on 1.10.1984 with a rent of Rs. 500/- per month. When the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short `the Act') came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2003, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 6 of the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short `the Rent Tribunal') which was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2006 by the Rent Tribunal against which an appeal was filed by the respondent-landlord before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short `the Appellate Rent Tribunal') which was allowed vide order dated 25.4.2008 and on revision, rent was fixed at Rs. 1,050/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2003. According to the respondent-landlord, a sum of Rs. 69,085/- was due towards arrears of rent. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 9(a) of the Act against the petitioner-tenant on the premise that a sum of Rs. 69,085/- was due to be paid by the petitioner-tenant on revision of rent as per order dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal under Section 6 of the Act. After adjustment of amount of Rs. 42,323/-, which was deposited by the petitioner-tenant in Saving Bank Account No. 697 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Aerodrum Circle, Kota, total unpaid amount of arrears of rent as on 31.7.2008 was Rs. 29,762/-. As per condition No. 1 of the agreement between the parties, if the amount of rent is not paid by 5th day of the month, interest @ Rs. 1.50 per hundred per month was payable. Thus, total amount of Rs. 1,862/- was payable as interest. The respondent-landlord serveda notice on the tenant in relation to unpaid amount of arrears of rent on 23.5.2008 whereafter the tenant deposited amount of Rs. 1,313/- on 9.6.2008; Rs. 19,013/- on 3.7.2008; Rs. 1,313/- on 8.7.2008; Rs. 1,315/- on 8.8.2008. Thus, total amount of Rs. 22,954/- was paid by the tenant and still amount of Rs. 5,670/- remained unpaid. He has thus committed default in payment of rent and is liable to be evicted. 1,313/- on 9.6.2008; Rs. 19,013/- on 3.7.2008; Rs. 1,313/- on 8.7.2008; Rs. 1,315/- on 8.8.2008. Thus, total amount of Rs. 22,954/- was paid by the tenant and still amount of Rs. 5,670/- remained unpaid. He has thus committed default in payment of rent and is liable to be evicted. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 3.4.2012 dismissed the eviction petition and held that if certain amount was due to be paid pursuant to revision of rent under Section 6 of the Act, the same can be recovered by the landlord as the order aforesaid was executable and she can initiate execution proceedings, but non-payment of differential amount of arrears of rent in this behalf cannot be said to be default in the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. Further, the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 8.1.2015 has reversed that finding of the Rent Tribunal and held that even non-payment of such amount, despite service of notice under Section 9 of the Act, would tantamount to default. It, therefore, directed eviction of the petitioner-tenant. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant. 2. Mr. Rajveer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was presently paying rent @ Rs. 1,748/- per month. Even since revision of rent, he is regularly paying rent in the bank account of the respondent-landlord. Reference is made to the receipt of months of April, 2015 to July, 2015. The Appellate Rent Tribunal while revising the rent under Section 6 of the Act required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,050/- as rent in the bank account of respondent. The petitioner has quantified and paid total sum of Rs. 43,123/- in the bank account of the respondent and thereafter further deposited a sum of Rs. 2,626/- and Rs. 19,113/-. Thus, total amount of Rs. 64,762/- was deposited by him. Balance amount of Rs. 1,286/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the bank account of the respondent vide receipt dated 5.4.2012. The petitioner on obtaining copy of order of revision of rent dated 25.4.2008 made deposit of Rs. 1,313/- vide receipt dated 9.6.2008 and thereafter also further deposited rent on 8.7.2008, 1.8.2008, 8.9.2008, 8.10.2008 and 8.11.2008. There was thus no default as alleged. It is argued that Appellate Rent Tribunal erroneously held that total remaining amount was Rs. 3,808/-. The petitioner on obtaining copy of order of revision of rent dated 25.4.2008 made deposit of Rs. 1,313/- vide receipt dated 9.6.2008 and thereafter also further deposited rent on 8.7.2008, 1.8.2008, 8.9.2008, 8.10.2008 and 8.11.2008. There was thus no default as alleged. It is argued that Appellate Rent Tribunal erroneously held that total remaining amount was Rs. 3,808/-. In doing so, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has excluded amount of Rs. 1,862/- that was claimed by the respondent in the calculation of arrears as amount of interest. This has been done by the respondent unilaterally on her own by treating delay in payment of rent in further succeeding months. On the date of notice, payable amount of rent was Rs. 62,176/- not Rs. 64,915/- as alleged by the respondent. Even if some amount has remained due or unpaid towards the arrears of revision of rent for the period anterior to the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, that cannot be taken as non-payment of the same as the same would be recovered by the landlord by getting the aforesaid order executed and order of eviction cannot be passed by taking the same as default in the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. 3. Mr. Pradeep Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord opposed the writ petition and supported order passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal. He has argued that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was fully justified indirecting eviction of the petitioner-tenant because it held that pursuant to the computation made by both the parties, differential amount of rent was still payable by the tenant to the landlord. Tenant had admitted a sum of Rs. 1,286/- as due whereas as per the landlord even after deduction of amount of interest, Rs. 3,808/- was payable. It was difference of amount of Rs. 3,037/- in the quantification made by both the parties. If the due amount of rent had not been paid despite notice, it has to be treated as default. Calculation of differential amount has rightly arrived by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that at the time of taking disputed premise on rent, rent note was executed by the parties wherein they agreed that if the rent is not paid by the tenant by 5th day of succeeding month, then landlord will be entitled to interest @ 1.50% per month. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that at the time of taking disputed premise on rent, rent note was executed by the parties wherein they agreed that if the rent is not paid by the tenant by 5th day of succeeding month, then landlord will be entitled to interest @ 1.50% per month. Under that condition, the respondent-landlord has rightly claimed amount of Rs. 1,862/- towards interest. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon decision in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Bhagwati Lal, 2005 CJ (Rent) Rajasthan Page 274. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that contention of petitioner-tenant that eviction of the tenant cannot be sought on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent which has been revised in accordance with provisions of the Act is against the facts and contrary to law as well. Eviction on account of default in payment of arrears of revised rent can be directed. It has been submitted that amount of arrears of rent Rs. 22,592/- for the period from 21.5.2008 to 30.4.2008 consists of 15 months of rent and no amount of interest is included therein. The petitioner-tenant has admitted vide Annexure-1 before the Rent Tribunal that amount of Rs. 19,710/- was due from February, 2007 to April, 2008 which is equal to rent of 15 months, therefore, the same falls within the meaning of wording "amount of rent due from him (tenant) for four months" as provided under Section 9(a) of the Act. As per Section 9(a) of the Act, the landlord is only required to prove that he has provided information of his bank account and the arrears of rent till the date of notice has not been paid within 30 days from the date of service of notice. If it is considered that the amount of rent which is due should be of consecutive four months, then purpose of Section 9(a) of the Act would fail. It is wrong to say that if any amount is due towards arrears of rent consequent upon revision of rent, then the same can be recovered by getting the order of revision of rent executed and not by filing eviction petition. It is wrong to say that if any amount is due towards arrears of rent consequent upon revision of rent, then the same can be recovered by getting the order of revision of rent executed and not by filing eviction petition. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the words "demanding arrears of rent", Tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent" and "amount of rent due from him for four months" ought to be interpreted in right manner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon decision of this Court in Rashid Khan vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.) 362 = RLW 2005(1) Raj. 519. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. The Legislature has incorporated special provision for revision of rent in the existing tenancies considering the fact that in some such cases, tenancy might relate back to 40's and 50's. The Legislature has, therefore, taken 1.1.1950 as basis for making such computation for revision of rent. This provision has been given overriding effect over any other stipulation in any agreement between the landlord and the tenant. Section 6 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement where the premises have been let out before the commencement of the Act, rent thereof shall be liable to be revised according to formula given therein. In order to appreciate the controversy in the present case, it would be useful to reproduce the aforesaid provision in extenso, which reads as under: "6. Revision of rent in respect of existing tenancies:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained inany agreement. where the premises have been let out before the commencement of this Act, the rent thereof shall be liable to be revised according to the formula indicated below:- (a) where the premises have been let out prior to 1st January, 1950, it shall be deemed to have been let out on 1st January, 1950 and the rent payable at that time shall be liable to be increased at the rate 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; (b) 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 rate 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the period of ten years for merger of increase of rent under sub-section (1), is not completed upto the year of the commencement of this Act, the rent at the rate of 5% per annum shall be increased upto the year of the commencement of this Act and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in rent. (3) The rent arrived at according to the formula given in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall, after completion of each year from the year of commencement of this Act, again be liable to be increased and paid at the rate of 5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. Such rent shall further be liable to be increased at similar rate and merged in similar manner till the tenancy subsists. (4) The rent revised as per formula given under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall be payable, after the commencement of this Act, from the date agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant or where any petition is filed in a Rent Tribunal, from the date of filing of such petition." 6. As would be evident from the above, where the premises have been let out prior to 1st January, 1950, it shall be deemed to have been let out on 1st January, 1950 and the rent payable at that time shall be liable to be increased at the rate of 5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. It is thereafter that in future amount of revised rent so arrived at would be further increased by 5% per annum and after every ten years, such increased rent would then got merged in the basis rent and then the same shall form the new base rent. Section 7 of the Act provides that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the rent of the premises let out after the commencement of this Act shall be liable to be increased at the rate of 5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. Such rent shall be liable to be further increased at the similar rate and merged in similar manner after every interval of ten years till the tenancy subsists. 7. Section 20 of the Act provides provision for execution of the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal which stipulates that on application by any party, the Rent Tribunal shall execute in the manner prescribed a final order or any order passed under the Act by adopting any one or more modes provided under sub-sec. (1) of this Section. Section 20(2) of the Act further provides that the Rent Tribunal may, in order to execute the final order or any other order passed under this Act require the help from the local administration or local body or the police. It is in this perspective that this Court is called upon to decide whether non-payment of differential amount of rent can be construed as default, whether in full or part, in meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 8. In the present case it is said to be fraction of the total amount which became payable after the order of revision of rent. While as per the landlord-respondent, the petitioner-tenant was in default of payment of rent for not having paid Rs. 3,808/- if the amount of interest is excluded, but as per the petitioner-tenant, this amount could be maximum Rs. 1,286/-. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the revision of rent, the tenant has been paying or depositing monthly rent at the enhanced rate, which was presently Rs. 1,748/- per month. When the tenant received notice on 23.5.2008, he replied that as per order dated 25.4.2008 due amount of rent was to be quantified upto 31.7.2008, which came to be Rs. 1,748/- per month. When the tenant received notice on 23.5.2008, he replied that as per order dated 25.4.2008 due amount of rent was to be quantified upto 31.7.2008, which came to be Rs. 66,048/-, out of which Rs. 64,762/- has already been deposited in the bank account of the respondent-landlord and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,286/- shall be deposited and future rent at the revised rate would be paid on month to month basis. Section 9 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or contract but subject to other provisions of this Act, the Rent Tribunal shall not order eviction of tenant unless it is satisfied that the tenant has nether paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months. Second proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act stipulates that no petition on the ground under this clause shall be filed unless the landlord has given a notice to the tenant by registered post, acknowledgment due, demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent within a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice. The phraseology "due from him for four months" in Section 9 supra is quite crucial as it shall have to be read conjointly with the words "arrears of rent", as envisaged in second proviso thereto. Revised rent or differential amount payable to the landlord consequent upon revision of rent or in other words, the difference between what has been paid in the past as per the old rate and what has actually become payable subsequently as per the order of revision of rent, cannot for the purpose of Section 9(a) of the Act be construed as arrears of rent. Although of course, it is arrears payable by the tenant to the landlord as part of the rent payable but the quantification of the same having been made by specific order under a particular provision, i.e. Section 6 of the Act, the said order would be executable as per the procedure provided under Section 20 of the Act. Notice by landlord to tenant disclosing his bank account and calling upon him to pay the rent due from him for four months under first proviso of Section 9(a) of the Act envisages specific four months whether rent has not been paid. Notice by landlord to tenant disclosing his bank account and calling upon him to pay the rent due from him for four months under first proviso of Section 9(a) of the Act envisages specific four months whether rent has not been paid. Such four months could be any four months, not necessarily continuous four months. Notice under proviso second to Section 9(a) of the Act should demand from the tenant payment of arrears of rent of such four months and if he fails to make payment of such arrears of rent within 30 days from the date of service of notice, only then the landlord would be entitled to maintain a petition for eviction against him on this ground. The amount payable pursuant to order passed under Section 6 of the Act whether full or in part, cannot be read into second proviso to Section 9(a), i.e., "amount of rent due from him for four months and arrears of rent for such four months." 9. In view of above, impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is quashed and set aside. Judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal is restored. Writ petition is allowed. Stay application stands disposed of.