Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 793 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Gupta v. Jagdish Kumar Soni

2015-04-08

ALOK SHARMA

body2015
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. A challenge has been made by the petitioner-landlord (hereinafter `the landlord') to the order dated 29-11-2013 passed by District Judge Baran as the Appellate Rent Tribunal (hereinafter `the Appellate Rent Tribunal') under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `2001 Act'). 2. Counsel for the landlord has submitted that the order dated 29-11-2013 is vitiated inasmuch as the Appellate Rent Tribunal, subsequent to remand under order dated 18-7-2013 passed by this court in SBCWP No. 10298/2011, has failed to address, despite directions of this court, the case of the landlord with reference to ground agitated under Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act, where under eviction of the tenant is to be directed where the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a premises suitable/adequate for his requirement. It has been submitted that vide order dated 18-7-2013, this court directed as under:- "Both the Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties jointly agreed to a disposal of the instant petition on the following terms:- 1. The order dated 8-7-2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner landlord being denied the right to pursue his eviction proceedings under the Act of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in respect of grounds based on default under Sections 9(a), 9(j) as also under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 Act for revision of rent; 2. The landlord shall not be allowed to agitate the ground based on bona fide and reasonable necessity under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 in view of the withdrawal of the suit pending before the competent civil court under its order dated 11-11-2003; 3. The Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran shall decide the appeal now under remand to it within a period of four months of presentation of certified copy of this order." 3. Counsel for the landlord has submitted that therefore following the remand, the Appellate Rent Tribunal was under a duty to address the case of the landlord with reference to evidence before it qua Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act. 4. Counsel for the landlord has submitted that therefore following the remand, the Appellate Rent Tribunal was under a duty to address the case of the landlord with reference to evidence before it qua Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act. 4. It has been further submitted that the impugned order dated 29-11-2013 is also vitiated on the ground that in computing the revised rent under Section 6 of the 2001 Act the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed two palpable errors (i) the commencement of the tenancy has not been taken from 1974, when the premises was first let out to the tenant by the erstwhile landlord, but from 1978 when the premises in question was purchased by the landlord from the erstwhile landlord and the tenancy attorned accordingly, and (ii) the Appellate Rent Tribunal has also erred in construing the amendment to Section 6(2) of the 2001 Act effective 22-2-2006 retrospectively, even while this court in the case of Daljeet Singh v. Appellate Rent Tribunal Sriganganagar [2009(2) CDR 1213 (Raj.)] has held that it is prospective in nature. It has been submitted that in the law obtaining the landlord is entitled to revision of rent under Section 6 of the 2001 Act taking the commencement of the tenancy from 1974, when the premises was first let out to the tenant by the erstwhile landlord, and revision of rent at the rate of 7.5% per annum upto 21-2- 2006, and thereafter at the rate of 5% per annum. 5. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Mamoon Khalid, has fairly admitted that indeed the Appellate Rent Tribunal in terms of the specific directions passed by this court on 18-7-2013, was under an obligation to address the case of the landlord with reference to Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act and the matter may be remanded to the Appellate Tribunal on this count. He has however submitted that the revision of rent by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is in accordance with law as amendment to Section 6 of the 2001 effective 22-2-2006, making yearly enhancement at 5% is retrospective in nature. It has been further submitted that in the event the landlord had filed an application under Section 6 of the 2001 prior to the amendment on 22-2-2006, he could have been entitled to enhancement at the rate of 7.5% per annum till the date of amendment. It has been further submitted that in the event the landlord had filed an application under Section 6 of the 2001 prior to the amendment on 22-2-2006, he could have been entitled to enhancement at the rate of 7.5% per annum till the date of amendment. As this was not the case, the application under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 having been filed in 2003, revision of rent would of necessity be @ 5% per annum. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. From the submission of counsel for the parties, it is admitted position that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has failed to address the case of the landlord with reference to ground under Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act, even though it was a specific case of the landlord that the tenant was liable to be evicted inter alia on the ground that he had acquired premises adequate and suitable to his requirement. I am of the considered opinion that even with reference to the revision of rent the Appellate Rent Tribunal has erred in overlooking the judgment of this court in the case of Daljeet Singh (supra), where amendment to Section 6 of the 2001 Act making yearly enhancement of rent at 5% instead of 7.5% has been held to be prospective in nature. Therefore the landlord would be entitled to computation of revision of rent on the basis of 7.5% per annum upto 21-2-2006 and thereafter at 5% per annum. I find no force in the submission of counsel for the respondent tenant that application under Section 6 of the 2001 having been filed in December, 2003 the petitioner landlord would be disentitled of the benefits of Section 6 of the 2001 Act prior to the amendment of 22-2-2006 and yearly revision of rent at the rate of 7.5% per annum prior to 22-2-2006. The landlord would be entitled to yearly revision of rent as per formula set out in Section 6(2) of the 2001 Act both prior to the amendment of 22-2-2006 and thereafter at the rates obtaining during the period of tenancy, irrespective of the date of the filing of the application. 8. The landlord would be entitled to yearly revision of rent as per formula set out in Section 6(2) of the 2001 Act both prior to the amendment of 22-2-2006 and thereafter at the rates obtaining during the period of tenancy, irrespective of the date of the filing of the application. 8. I would therefore remand the matter to the Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran with the following directions:- (1) The case of the petitioner landlord with reference to Section 9 (j) of the 2001 Act be addressed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran on the basis of evidence on record; (2) Revision of rent sought by the landlord be made with reference to commencement of tenancy from 1974 when the premises was initially let out by the erstwhile landlord, and then attorned to the current landlord, the applicant. Further computation of revised rent be made prior to 21-2-2006 on a yearly revision at the rate of 7.5% per annum and thereafter at the rate of 5% per annum. (3) The Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (4) The provisions of Section 21(4) of the 2001 Act be adhered to. No Adjournment shall be granted unless an application in writing and allowed for good reason found. In the event of filing of frivolous application the same be decided on the same day or the following day by a reasoned and speaking order, and when necessary cost be also imposed as a measure of regulation of court proceedings. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.