GUPTA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY the impugned orders the Rent Control Tribunal has decided respondent's application filed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and an appeal against the order has failed. Resultantly, the monthly rent of the premises has been determined at Rs. 804. 89. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 6 of the Act, alleging inter-alia, that the premises have been let out to the petitioner on 15. 11. 1973 at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- and at present the is paying rent of Rs. 200/- per month, while according to provisions of Section 6, as on 15. 11. 1993, monthly rent should have been Rs. 460/- and as on 15. 11. 2003 it should be Rs. 805/ -. With these allegations it is prayed that monthly rent of the premises be determined at Rs. 805/ -. The application was supported by affidavit of the plaintiff applicant respondent. The application was contested by the petitioner, contending that the present rent of rs. 200/- has been increased under pressure. In para 6 a plea has been taken to the effect, that the shop was constructed for the first time in the year 1972 and was let out to one Kanaram son of Bhuraram for operating a lathe machine at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ -. Thereafter in the year 1973 the premises were let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-, and then it was increased to Rs. 150/- and presently he is paying Rs. 200/- per mont. With this pleading it was contended, that in 1972 the basis rent of the premises was Rs. 60/-, and therefore, determination of rent could be made only on the basis of treating that rent to be Rs. 60/ -. Interalia on this basis, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. The petitioner also filed an affidavit in support of the reply. During the trial the petitioner moved an application, praying that the applicant has concealed the fact, as to who was the tenant in the premises prior to the petitioner, and therefore, it was prayed that Kanaram be summoned to give evidence on oath about his being tenant in the premises. Likewise, another application was filed, praying for the permission to cross examine the applicant, as he has concealed the fact of the premises being already on rent with Kanaram. Learned trial court vide order dated 10. 2. 2004 (Annex. 8) rejected both the applications, by holding, that according to Section 6 the determination of the rent is to be made on the basis of present tenancy, and no on the basis of the rent at which the premises were earlier let out to any other tenant. Thereafter learned trial court vide order Anx. 2 dated 5. 4. 2004 has made the determination as noticed above, and the appeal has been dismissed vide Anx. 1. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the language of Section 6 (1) (b) which reads as under:- " 6 (1) (b) where the premises have been let out on or after 1. 01. 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. 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 this Act. "
(3.) ON the basis of above language, it was contended, that according to this provision, since this applies to the cases where the premises have been let out on or after 1. 1. 1950, for making determination of the rent, the rent to be taken into account is the rent at which the premises were let out after 1. 1. 1950. It was also contended that the expression used in clause (b) "the rent payable at the time of commencement of the tenancy" is not required to be interpreted to mean the "rent payable at the commencement of the tenancy of the present tenant" but is required to be interpreted to mean "the rent payable at the commencement of the tenancy which was created after 1. 1. 1950. " Learned counsel referred to some judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of interpretation of statutes, taking the view that it is not open for the Court to supply words in the statutes, rather statutes is to be interpreted on the plain language, as it is enacted by the legislature. Other submissions made is, that the learned trial court was in error in refusing the petitioner's request for cross examination of applicant, so also for summoning the previous tenant Kanaram. The last submission made in on the authority of the judgment of this Court in Madanlal vs. Laxman Das (1), to contend that expression "payable" used in Section 6 (1) (b) is required to be interpreted in the manner that the rent which was payable for the premises when it was let out to Kanaram in the year 1972 is required to be taken to be the rent "payable. " I have considered the submissions and do not find any force in any of the submissions. I my view if the language of Section 6 (1) (b) is considered on the face of its, it makes it clear, that it makes only two categories. The first being covered by clause (a) where under the premises have been let out prior to 1. 1. 1950 and a fiction is created to the effect that those premises shall be deed to be let out as on 1. 1. 1990, and the other category is provided under clause (b) comprehending cases where the premises have been let out on or after 1. 1. 1950. Undisputably the present case falls in the category covered by clause (b ). ;