1
2
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4865/2006.
Hansa Udhyog & Anr.
Vs.
Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors.
Date of Order :: 21st January 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Tarun Joshi, for the petitioners.
Mr. M.C. Bhoot, for the respondents.
.....
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition is directed against the order dated
25.10.2005 (Annex.9) as passed by the Appellate Rent
Tribunal, Udaipur in Appeal No.40/2004 whereby the learned
Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order dated 10.09.2004
(Annex.7) for revision of rent as passed by the Rent Tribunal,
Udaipur in Original Application No.47/2003. By the said order
dated 10.09.2004, the Rent Tribunal proceeded to revise the
rent in relation to the demised premises on the prayer of the
landlord from the last paid rate of Rs.5,990/- per month to
Rs.13,191/- per month payable from 26.08.2003, the date of
filing of the application.
The relevant aspects of the matter are that the landlord-
respondent No.3 filed the application aforesaid under Section
6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘the Act of 2001’
2
hereafter) against the tenant-petitioners with the submissions,
inter alia, that the suit premises situated at Plot No.11A,
opposite Town Hall, Udaipur were let out initially to the non-
applicant Kanhaiyalal (petitioner No.2 herein) on 01.02.1984
at a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-; and that the tenant Kanhaiyalal
later on inducted his son as a partner in the business and the
tenancy was continued for further 12 years under a registered
lease deed. While submitting that the monthly rent in relation
to the premises in question was payable at Rs.7,875/- until
01.02.1994 and at Rs.13,308.75 until 31.03.2003, the
applicant prayed for revision of rent at Rs.13,308.75 per
month w.e.f. 01.04.2003.
The petitioners put the application to contention, inter
alia, on the grounds that the description of the premises was
not correct inasmuch as mezzanine floor was not permitted by
the Urban Improvement Trust in the approved plan. The
petitioners also contended that the Act of 2001 had no
application to the tenancy in question inasmuch as it does not
apply to the premises let out for a monthly rent above
Rs.4,000/- per month; that the premises in question were
permitted to be constructed for residential purpose and the
facility of having a shop in the premises was extended by the
Urban Improvement Trust only for providing a source of
3
livelihood to the landlord. The petitioners also contended that
there had been an agreement between the parties to revise
the rent by 10% after every five years and the rent had been
enhanced by the parties accordingly; and such rate of rent was
not liable to be enhanced at the instance of the landlord under
Section 6 of the Act of 2001. On the pleadings of parties, the
learned Rent Tribunal proceeded to frame the following issues
for determination of the questions involved in the matter:-
"1. क क र सद पररसर पर क र न तण
अध न म 2001 ल ग ह ह त ?
2. क क र सद पररसर सरपथम दद. 1.2.84
4,500 रपए पनतम ह % दर स क र पर
दद ?
3. परर क'त क र क हग ?
4. अ त ष ?"
After taking the evidence led by the parties, by its
impugned order dated 10.09.2004 (Annex.7), the Tribunal
decided in issue No.1 that the provisions of Chapter II and III
of the Act of 2001 were very much applicable to the tenancy in
question as the premises were let out specifically for
commercial purpose. In issue No.2, the learned Tribunal
found with reference to the statements of the parties and the
documentary evidence on record that the premises in question
4
were let out for the first time on 01.02.1984 at the rent of
Rs.4,500/- per month. In issue No.3, the learned Tribunal
proceeded to find that the revised rent as on 01.02.2003
would be in the round figure of Rs.13,191/- per month and
directed such rent to be payable from the date of filing of the
application i.e., 26.08.2003. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, by
its impugned order dated 25.10.2005 (Annex.9) affirmed the
order as passed by the Rent Tribunal.
While seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, the
learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that
the premises in question were let out to the petitioners for the
first time on 14.10.1992 by execution of lease deed in favour
of the petitioner No.2 Kanhaiya Lal, and it was specifically
mentioned in the lease deed that the rent of the shop shall be
Rs. 4,950/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1992; and hence, according
to the learned counsel, the date of commencement of tenancy
could not have been taken at any date earlier than the date as
mentioned in the lease deed executed between the parties .
Learned counsel contended that the learned Rent Tribunal
and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have been in error in taking
the date of commencement of the tenancy as 01.02.1984
while assuming that the tenancy commenced under the earlier
lease deed has continued.
5
The submission as made on behalf of the petitioners
has its own shortcomings. It has precisely been noted by the
learned Appellate Rent Tribunal that in the lease deed
executed on 14.10.1992, amongst others, the very first term
had been that the shop in question was already in possession
of party of first part (the tenant Kanhaiyalal) and, with effect
from 01.04.1992, such possession would be under the present
lease deed. The said term, as noticed by the learned Appellate
Rent Tribunal, could usefully be reproduced thus:
"द पर ब* पथम प' र पहल स चल आ
रह ह-, दद 1.4.92 स ब* इस ल * ड0ड तहत
रहग "
When the aforesaid has been the specific stipulation
between the parties, it is but apparent that the very same
tenancy has continued; and, in the given fact situation, for
the purpose of revision of rent under Section 6 of the Act of
2001, the subordinate Tribunals have not committed any error
in taking the initial date of commencement of the tenancy as
the relevant date. The revision of rent under Section 6 of the
Act of 2001 has to be worked out with reference to the initial
date of commencement of tenancy and in the present case
merely for revision of rent by the agreement or for certain
6
alteration of the manner of use of the premises, it cannot be
said that any new tenancy commenced from the date of
execution of the new lease deed. While rejecting a similar
nature contention, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer & Ors. : D.B. Civil
Special Appeal No. 381/2005, decided on 16.12.2005, said,-
“There is no ambiguity in the Section and on a
plain reading, it manifest that the revision has to
be worked out with reference to the date of
commencement of the tenancy. Merely because
the term of tenancy relating to rent stood modified
by agreement of the parties, we do not think that a
new tenancy commenced from such date. The
revision has to be worked out treating the initial
date of tenancy as the reckoning date and we
therefore do not find any infirmity in the order.”
The fact that the premises in question were let out for
the first time on 31.01.1984 at Rs.4,500/- per month was not a
matter of dispute at all and was rather specifically admitted by
the petitioners in their reply to the application (vide paragraph-
7). In fact, the petitioners-tenants essentially attempted to
assert before the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent
Tribunal that the Act of 2001 would not apply for the building in
question having been permitted to be constructed for
residential house. Such submission was obviously baseless
and has rightly been rejected because, admittedly, the
7
demised premises have been let out and are being used for
commercial purpose only. The suggestion as made in this writ
petition about commencement of a new tenancy was not as
such the case of the petitioners before the subordinate
Tribunals. Be that as it may, the submission as made remains
untenable for the reasons already noticed above and stands
rejected.
An attempt was also made to suggest that there had
been an amount of Rs.50,000/- lying in deposit with the
landlord. Reference to such a fact, in the first place, was not
made before the Rent Tribunal and no issue in that relation
was framed nor such a submission would have any relevance
or bearing on the application for revision of rent wherein the
revision has to be worked out as per the scheme of Section 6
of the Act of 2001.
The view taken by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate
Rent Tribunal in this case cannot be said to be unjustified and
the orders impugned do not suffer from any error apparent on
the face of record so as to warrant interference in the writ
jurisdiction.
The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left
to bear their own costs.
8
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
Mohan/