- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 26-7-2005 and 2-6-2006 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Bharatpur and the order dated 26-7-2007 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal Bharatpur.
(2.) THE facts of the case: the petitioner is a tenant in the premises let out by respondent No.1 Girraj Prasad on 15-2-1990 at the rent of Rs.700/- per month. On coming into force the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (herein after "2001 Act'), the respondent landlord (herein after "the landlord') moved an application for revision of rent under Section 6 of the 2001 Act, which provides notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement, where the premises have been let out before the commencement of the Act, the rent thereof shall be liable to be revised according to the formula indicated in section. When the 2001 Act was enacted, clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 provided that where the premises had been let out on or after 1st January, 1950 the rent payable at the time of commencement of the tenancy would be liable to be increased at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years, and the amount of rent so arrived at would again be liable to be increased at the rate of 7.5% per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of the Act. Section 6 (1) (b) read as under:- (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 7.5% 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 7.5% per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of the Act. This clause (b) was however amended vide order dated 22-2-2006, and the yearly enhancement of rent was reduced to 5% instead of 7.5% p.a. In the case at hand, the landlord moved an application before the Rent Tribunal Bharatpur under Section 6 of the 2001 Act on or abour 13-7-2004. The application was decided on 26-7-2005 with reference to the then extant provision of the 2001 Act, and applying increase of rent at the rate of 7.5% the rent was fixed by the Rent Tribunal as Rs.1590.62 per month effective 15-7-2004. It is admitted fact that the order dated 26-7-2005 was not challenged by way of appeal under Section 19 of the 2001 Act and the order attained finality. The tenant however does not appear to have complied with the order dated 26-7-2005. Consequently, on 15-5-2006 the landlord moved an application for execution of the order dated 26-7-2005. On notice of the execution petition, the tenant in his defence sought to take advantage of the amendment of clause (b) of Section 6(1) of the 2001 Act effective 22-2-2006 and contended that vide order dated 26-7-2005 the rent has wrongly been revised at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and the same be modified with reference to 5% yearly increase with reference to the amended provision as the amendment of 22-2-2006 was a retrospective amendment.
(3.) THE Rent Tribunal Bharatpur vide order dated 2-6-2006 dismissed the objection of the tenant on the ground that the order dated 26-7-2005 had attained finality as the same was not challenged in appeal and that the amendment of clause (b) of Section 6(1) of the 2001 Act was prospective. THE tenant preferred an appeal against the order dated 2-6-2006 before the Rent Appellate Tribunal Bharatpur, which came to be dismissed 26-7-2007. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this court in the case of Sita Devi Vs. Bishamber Dayal [2008 (3) W.L.C. (Raj.) 662] has held that the provision of clause (b) of Section 6(1) of the 2001 Act as amended on 22-2-2006 are retrospective in nature and revision of rent under the said section is to be computed in accordance with the amendment even for periods prior to the amendment. It is submitted that in the view of the matter the order dated 26-7-2005 passed by the Rent Tribunal Bharatpur revising the rent payable with yearly enhancement of rent at 7.5% was illegal, erroneous and not executable without rectification as per amended provision. It is submitted that in view of the legal position the order of revision of rent passed by the Rent Tribunal on 26-7-2005 as also its order dated 2-6-2006 passed in the execution application and the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal dated 26-7-2007 are liable to be set aside. Counsel for respondent however relied upon the case of Daljeet Singh Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal Sri Ganganagar [2009 (2) Current Diwani Reports 1213 (Raj.)], wherein another single bench of this court has held that amendment to clause (b) of Section 6(1) of the 2001 Act brought out on 22-2-2006 is a prospective amendment and revision of rent for the period prior to amendment would be based on 7.5% p.a. enhancement. ;