RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 27. 9. 2004 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Dholpur in Civil Appeal No. 43/2004. The aforesaid order is mainly challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly considered the case and passed the impugned judgment dated 27. 9. 2004, which is per se in contravention of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referred Section 9, which deals with eviction of tenants and is reproduced as under: " Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract by subject to other provisions of this Act, the Rent tribunal shall order eviction of tenant unless unless it is satisfied that, - (a) the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months: Provided that the ground under this clause shall not be available to the landlord if he has not disclosed to the tenant his bank account number and name of the bank in the same municipal area, in the rent agreement or by a notice sent to him by registered post acknowledgment due: Provided further that no petition on the ground under this clause shall be filed unless the landlord has given a notice to the tenant by registered post, acknowledgment due, demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has not make payment of arrears of rent within thirty days from the date of service of notice: Explanation:-For the purpose of this clause, the rent shall be deemed to have been tendered when the same is remitted through money order to the landlord by properly addressing the same. " More particularly he submits that notice under Section 9 demanding, arrears of the rent due should be issued to the petitioner well within time and also have to disclose the bank account and the name of the bank in the same municipal area. He further submits that undisputedly Rs. 200/- per month rent was agreed between the landlord and the tenant and in the notice, which was served upon the petitioner by the respondent- landlord was not on the arrears counting the rent Rs. 200/- per month but has suo motu enhanced the rate and given Rs. 461. 66 per month w. e. f. 1. 4. 2003 by increasing the rent from Rs. 200/- per month unilaterally. Without filing any application under Section 6 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 and since no decision for enhancement has been passed by the competent court, the landlord cannot issue notice for depositing the outstanding loan at the enhanced rate unilaterally. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Rent Tribunal has seriously erred not to consider the fact that the petitioner has tendered the arrears of amount through money order well within time. In such case the petitioner cannot said to be defaulted in view of Section 9 of the Rent Control Act 2001.
(3.) PER contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 Mr. Rastogi submits that the petitioner has defaulted in making the payment of rent within the period of 4 months as prescribed under Section 9. He further submits that the notice, which is required to be served upon the petitioner under Section 9 has been sent by the respondent No. 2 on 13. 10. 2003, which was received by the petitioner on 16. 10. 2003. From taking the date of service effective upon the petitioner the last date for depositing the outstanding rent amount i. e. within a period of one month came to an end on 15th November whereas the petitioner sent the money order tendering the outstanding amount at the rate of Rs. 200/- on 18th November i. e. admittedly beyond 30 days as stipulated in Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001. Mr. Rastogi further submits that it is no doubt that the respondent No. 2 served a notice of enhanced rate unilaterally but in any case since the number of bank account has been furnished by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner could have deposited the rent amount calculating the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with the bank or could have sent money order well within time after receipt of notice. Since the petitioner has not availed the opportunity to deposit the amount within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the executing court has not erred in passing the execution decree against the petitioner. ;