Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) EVEN though the matter comes up before this Court on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the ex -parte stay order dated 08.02.2010, passed by this Court, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally decided. The issue in the present writ petition is as to whether the amendment to Section 6(1)(a)(b) and 6(1) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') effective 22.02.2006 is prospective or retrospective.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that a shop was taken on rent in 1988 by the petitioner -tenant'(hereinafter 'the tenant') for a period of one year at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month from the respondent -landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord'). The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 came into force effective 01.04.2003. The respondent -landlord filed an application under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 for revision of rent before the Rent Tribunal, Sikar. At the relevant time, the Act of 2001 provided for yearly enhancement of rent @ 7.5% per annum. Thereupon the Rent Tribunal, Sikar vide its order dated 17.12.2004 allowed the landlord's application under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 directing that the rent would be enhanced @ 7.5% per annum. An appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2001 against the said order dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Rent Tribunal was dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal on 31.08.2006. The tenant carried the matter of revision of rent before the this Court by way of a S.B. Civil writ petition No. 7728/2006 challenging the order dated 17.12.2004, passed by the Rent Tribunal and the order dated 31.08.2006, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 19.12.2006. A D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 543/2007 was however pursued by the tenant against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 19.12.2006 as aforesaid. On the matter coming up before the Hon'ble Division Bench on 20.10.2008, the tenant sought to withdraw the DB special appeal with liberty to move an appropriate application before the Rent Tribunal for modification of its order dated 17.12.2004 in view of what the tenant perceived to be judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Devi & Anr. Vs. Bishamber Dayal [2008(3) WLC 662] in his favour. The D.B. Special Appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. In pursuance of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court under its order dated 20.10.2008, the tenant approached the Rent Tribunal by way of an application seeking reconsideration of its earlier order dated 17.12.2004 wherein the landlord had been given the benefit of the then extant provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 2001 and allowed yearly revision of rent @ 7.5% per annum. The case of the tenant before the Rent Tribunal in the second round of litigation was that a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sita Devi (Supra) having held that the amendment to Section 6 of the Act of 2001 effective 22.02.2006 was to apply with retrospective effect, the revision of rent by the Rent Tribunal under its order dated 17.12.2004 on the basis of 7.5% per annum enhancement required to be revisited, reconsidered and rectified. The learned Rent Tribunal however relying on a subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Daljeet Singh & 6 Ors. Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar & Ors. [2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 267] held that this Court in the aforesaid case had held that the amendment to Section 6 of the Act of 2001 brought about on 22.02.2006 was only prospective in nature and in so far as the revision of rent prior thereto was concerned, the landlord would be entitled to the benefit of the unamended provision entailing enhancement of rent @ 7.5% per annum upto the date of amendment i.e. 22.02.2006. An appeal against the aforesaid determination by the Tribunal, dismissing the application for modification vide its order dated 29.08.2009 was carried to the Appellate Rent Tribunal, but dismissed on 15.12.2009. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) HEARD the counsel for the tenant and landlord. Also perused the judgment of this Court in the case of Daljeet Singh (Supra) and the judgment of this Court in Sita Devi (Supra).;