This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.2006 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar, whereby the appeal
filed by the petitioner tenant against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sikar dated 06.04.2005 was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the application filed by the respondent landlady for revision of rent of the shop in dispute, the learned Rent
Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2005 revised the rent of the disputed shop at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Being aggrieved for the order passed by the
Rent Tribunal, the petitioner tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal
vide order dated 07.10.2006, hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Tribunal as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar failed to take note of the amendment made in the
Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005, whereby the rate of increase in rent i.e. 7.5% was reduced to 5% per annum.
Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Sita Devi & Anr. Vs.
Bishamber Dayal reported in 2008 (3) WLC 662 where in para No. 43 it has been held as under:-
“As a result of the discussion made above, the questions that are proposed in the beginning of this judgment are answered thus:
(i) that the revision of the rent as per Section6 of the Act of 2001 shall have to be made at the reduced rate of 5% pursuant to amendment in
clauses(a) and (b) of subsection (1) & sub-section(2) of Section 6 vide Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act of 2005 from the date of
commencement of tenancy on notional basis.
(ii) that the rate of 7.5% in the original textof Section 6 having been substituted by 5% by the amending Act of 2005, revision of rent from the
commencement of tenancy till the commencement of Act of 2001 with effect from 1st April, 2003 shall have to be made at the reduced rat of 5% per
annum on notional basis, the legislature having substituted the old rate by the new on expressed its intention by necessary implication to apply it
retrospectively from the date of enforcement of the Act of 2001. Substituted rate would thus apply retrospectively.
(iii) that the prescription of the rate of 7.5%by which the rent was required to be revised as per the originally enacted Section 6 of the Act of 2001 did
not create any vested or accrued right in favour of the landlord and therefore there does not arise any question of any such right being taken away.
The legislature having substituted the old rate by the new one and reduced the same from 7.5% to 5%, the reduced rate therefore by necessary
implication would apply retrospectively.
(iv) that although Section 6 and Section 14 ofthe Act of 2001 are so worded as to apparently confer the right only to the landlord to approach the Rent
Tribunal for notional revision of the rent but in the situation arising as a result of substitution of the rate of 7.5% to 5%, supra, the reduced rate
introduced by way of substitution alone would have to be applied for increase in the amount of rent settled at the time of commencement of tenancy
till commencement of the Act of 2001 i.e. 1st April, 2003 as per the formula given in Section 6 and the sum so arrived at then shall form the basis for
further increase in the rent. In order, therefore, not to deny the benefit in the reduction of rate at which the rent has now been intended to be notionally
increased for the period anterior to the date of commencement of Act of 2001, the tenants would also have the right to approach the Rent Tribunal for
necessary adjustments in the amount of the revised rent as per the reduced rate of 5% and for the same reason, therefore, the Appellate Rent
Tribunal would also have the powers to do so.â€
Counsel further submits that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Rent Tribunal, Sikar for deciding afresh in view of the amendment made in
Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 and also in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter
of Sita Devi & Anr. (Supra).
None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as also the amendment made in the Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment)
Act, 2005 as well as the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Sita Devi & Anr. (Supra), I deem it just and proper to
set aside the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 07.10.2006 as well as of the Rent Tribunal dated 06.04.2005.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Rent Tribunal as well as of the Rent Tribunal dated 07.10.2006 and 06.04.2005 respectively are set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Rent Tribunal, Sikar for deciding afresh the point of revision of rent in view of the amendment made in Rajasthan
Rent Control Act as well as in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Sita Devi & Anr. (Supra).
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Rent Tribunal for necessary compliance.
