{"id":186526,"date":"2009-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-09T02:07:03","modified_gmt":"2017-09-08T20:37:03","slug":"hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n2\n              S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4865\/2006.\n                            Hansa Udhyog & Anr.\n                                      Vs.\n                Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur & Ors.\n\n\n\n    Date of Order :: 21st January 2009.\n\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI\n\n    Mr. Tarun Joshi, for the petitioners.\n    Mr. M.C. Bhoot, for the respondents.\n                                    .....\n\n    BY THE COURT:<\/pre>\n
          This writ petition     is directed against the order dated<\/p>\n
    25.10.2005 (Annex.9) as passed by the Appellate Rent<\/p>\n
    Tribunal, Udaipur in Appeal No.40\/2004 whereby the learned<\/p>\n
    Appellate Tribunal       affirmed the order dated 10.09.2004<\/p>\n
    (Annex.7) for revision of rent as passed by the Rent Tribunal,<\/p>\n
    Udaipur in Original Application No.47\/2003. By the said order<\/p>\n
    dated 10.09.2004, the Rent Tribunal proceeded to revise the<\/p>\n
    rent in relation to the demised premises on the prayer of the<\/p>\n
    landlord from the last paid rate of Rs.5,990\/- per month to<\/p>\n
    Rs.13,191\/- per month payable from 26.08.2003, the date of<\/p>\n
    filing of the application.\n<\/p>\n
          The relevant aspects of the matter are that the landlord-<\/p>\n
    respondent No.3 filed the application aforesaid under Section<\/p>\n
    6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘the Act of 2001’
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
hereafter) against the tenant-petitioners with the submissions,<\/p>\n
inter alia, that the suit premises situated at Plot No.11A,<\/p>\n
opposite Town Hall, Udaipur were let out initially to the non-<\/p>\n
applicant Kanhaiyalal (petitioner No.2 herein) on 01.02.1984<\/p>\n
at a monthly rent of Rs.4,500\/-; and that the tenant Kanhaiyalal<\/p>\n
later on inducted his son as a partner in the business and the<\/p>\n
tenancy was continued for further 12 years under a registered<\/p>\n
lease deed. While submitting that the monthly rent in relation<\/p>\n
to the premises in question was payable at Rs.7,875\/- until<\/p>\n
01.02.1994 and at Rs.13,308.75 until 31.03.2003, the<\/p>\n
applicant   prayed for revision of rent at Rs.13,308.75 per<\/p>\n
month w.e.f. 01.04.2003.\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioners put the application to contention, inter<\/p>\n
alia, on the grounds that the description of the premises was<\/p>\n
not correct inasmuch as mezzanine floor was not permitted by<\/p>\n
the Urban Improvement Trust        in the approved plan.    The<\/p>\n
petitioners also contended that     the Act of 2001     had no<\/p>\n
application to the tenancy in question inasmuch as it does not<\/p>\n
apply to the premises let out for a monthly rent above<\/p>\n
Rs.4,000\/- per month; that the premises in question were<\/p>\n
permitted to be constructed for residential purpose and the<\/p>\n
facility of having a shop in the premises was extended by the<\/p>\n
Urban Improvement Trust only for providing a source of
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
livelihood to the landlord. The petitioners also contended that<\/p>\n
there had been an agreement between the parties to revise<\/p>\n
the rent by 10% after every five years and the rent had been<\/p>\n
enhanced by the parties accordingly; and such rate of rent was<\/p>\n
not liable to be enhanced at the instance of the landlord under<\/p>\n
Section 6 of the Act of 2001. On the pleadings of parties, the<\/p>\n
learned Rent Tribunal proceeded to frame the following issues<\/p>\n
for determination of the questions involved in the matter:-<\/p>\n
      \"1.   \u0915   \u0915 \u0930 \u0938\u0926 \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0938\u0930 \u092a\u0930 \u0915 \u0930                \u0928   \u0924\u0923\n            \u0905\u0927 \u0928 \u092e 2001 \u0932 \u0917 \u0939 \u0939 \u0924 ?\n\n      2.     \u0915 \u0915 \u0930 \u0938\u0926 \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0938\u0930 \u0938\u0930\u092a\u0925\u092e \u0926\u0926. 1.2.84\n             4,500 \u0930\u092a\u090f \u092a\u0928\u0924\u092e \u0939 % \u0926\u0930 \u0938 \u0915 \u0930     \u092a\u0930\n             \u0926\u0926 ?\n\n      3.    \u092a\u0930\u0930 \u0915'\u0924 \u0915 \u0930      \u0915       \u0939\u0917 ?\n\n      4.    \u0905 \u0924 \u0937 ?\"\n\n\n\n      After taking the evidence led by the parties,         by its\n\n<\/pre>\n
impugned order dated 10.09.2004 (Annex.7), the Tribunal<\/p>\n
decided in issue No.1 that the provisions of Chapter II and III<\/p>\n
of the Act of 2001 were very much applicable to the tenancy in<\/p>\n
question as the premises were let out specifically for<\/p>\n
commercial purpose.      In issue No.2, the learned Tribunal<\/p>\n
found with reference to the statements of the parties and the<\/p>\n
documentary evidence on record that the premises in question
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
were let out for the first time on 01.02.1984 at the rent of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,500\/- per month.    In issue No.3, the learned Tribunal<\/p>\n
proceeded to find that the revised rent as on 01.02.2003<\/p>\n
would be in the round figure of Rs.13,191\/- per month and<\/p>\n
directed such rent to be payable from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
application i.e., 26.08.2003. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, by<\/p>\n
its impugned order dated 25.10.2005 (Annex.9) affirmed the<\/p>\n
order as passed by the Rent Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
        While seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that<\/p>\n
the premises in question were let out to the petitioners for the<\/p>\n
first time on 14.10.1992 by execution of lease deed in favour<\/p>\n
of the petitioner No.2 Kanhaiya Lal, and it was specifically<\/p>\n
mentioned in the lease deed that the rent of the shop shall be<\/p>\n
Rs. 4,950\/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1992; and hence, according<\/p>\n
to the learned counsel, the date of commencement of tenancy<\/p>\n
could not have been taken at any date earlier than the date as<\/p>\n
mentioned in the lease deed executed between the parties .<\/p>\n
Learned counsel contended that the learned Rent Tribunal<\/p>\n
and the Appellate Rent Tribunal have been in error in taking<\/p>\n
the date of commencement of the tenancy         as 01.02.1984<\/p>\n
while assuming that the tenancy commenced under the earlier<\/p>\n
lease deed has continued.\n<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
      The submission as made on behalf of the petitioners<\/p>\n
has its own shortcomings. It has precisely been noted by the<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Rent Tribunal       that in the lease deed<\/p>\n
executed on 14.10.1992, amongst others, the very first term<\/p>\n
had been that the shop in question was already in possession<\/p>\n
of party of first part (the tenant Kanhaiyalal) and, with effect<\/p>\n
from 01.04.1992, such possession would be under the present<\/p>\n
lease deed. The said term, as noticed by the learned Appellate<\/p>\n
Rent Tribunal, could usefully be reproduced thus:<\/p>\n
      \"\u0926      \u092a\u0930   \u092c* \u092a\u0925\u092e \u092a' \u0930     \u092a\u0939\u0932 \u0938 \u091a\u0932 \u0906\n      \u0930\u0939 \u0939-, \u0926\u0926     1.4.92 \u0938 \u092c* \u0907\u0938 \u0932 * \u09210\u0921 \u0924\u0939\u0924\n      \u0930\u0939\u0917 \"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      When the aforesaid has been the specific stipulation<\/p>\n
between the parties, it is but apparent that the very same<\/p>\n
tenancy has continued; and, in the given fact situation, for<\/p>\n
the purpose of revision of rent under Section 6 of the Act of<\/p>\n
2001, the subordinate Tribunals have not committed any error<\/p>\n
in taking the initial date of commencement of the tenancy as<\/p>\n
the relevant date. The revision of rent under Section 6 of the<\/p>\n
Act of 2001 has to be worked out with reference to the initial<\/p>\n
date of commencement of tenancy and in the present case<\/p>\n
merely for revision of rent by the agreement or for certain
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
alteration of the manner of use of the premises, it cannot be<\/p>\n
said that any new tenancy commenced from the date of<\/p>\n
execution of the new lease deed. While rejecting a similar<\/p>\n
nature contention, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer & Ors. : D.B. Civil<\/p>\n
Special Appeal No. 381\/2005, decided on 16.12.2005, said,-<\/p>\n
      “There is no ambiguity in the Section and on a
\n      plain reading, it manifest that the revision has to
\n      be worked out with reference to the date of
\n      commencement of the tenancy. Merely because
\n      the term of tenancy relating to rent stood modified
\n      by agreement of the parties, we do not think that a
\n      new tenancy commenced from such date. The
\n      revision has to be worked out treating the initial
\n      date of tenancy as the reckoning date and we
\n      therefore do not find any infirmity in the order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The fact that the premises in question were let out for<\/p>\n
the first time on 31.01.1984 at Rs.4,500\/- per month was not a<\/p>\n
matter of dispute at all and was rather specifically admitted by<\/p>\n
the petitioners in their reply to the application (vide paragraph-<\/p>\n
7). In fact, the petitioners-tenants essentially attempted to<\/p>\n
assert before the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent<\/p>\n
Tribunal that the Act of 2001 would not apply for the building in<\/p>\n
question having been permitted to be constructed for<\/p>\n
residential house. Such submission was obviously baseless<\/p>\n
and has rightly been rejected because, admittedly, the
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
demised premises have been let out and are being used for<\/p>\n
commercial purpose only. The suggestion as made in this writ<\/p>\n
petition about commencement of a new tenancy was not as<\/p>\n
such the case of the petitioners before the subordinate<\/p>\n
Tribunals. Be that as it may, the submission as made remains<\/p>\n
untenable for the reasons already noticed above and stands<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
       An attempt was also made to suggest that there had<\/p>\n
been an amount of Rs.50,000\/- lying in deposit with the<\/p>\n
landlord. Reference to such a fact, in the first place, was not<\/p>\n
made before the Rent Tribunal and no issue in that relation<\/p>\n
was framed nor such a submission would have any relevance<\/p>\n
or bearing on the application for revision of rent wherein the<\/p>\n
revision has to be worked out as per the scheme of Section 6<\/p>\n
of the Act of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
       The view taken by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate<\/p>\n
Rent Tribunal in this case cannot be said to be unjustified and<\/p>\n
the orders impugned do not suffer from any error apparent on<\/p>\n
the face of record so as to warrant interference in the writ<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
       The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.<\/p>\n
However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left<\/p>\n
to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
          8<\/span><\/p>\n
             (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.\n<\/p>\n
Mohan\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009 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. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nHansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control ... on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control ... on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-08T20:37:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T20:37:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1384,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control ... on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T20:37:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control ... on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control ... on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-08T20:37:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T20:37:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009"},"wordCount":1384,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009","name":"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control ... on 21 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T20:37:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hansa-udhyog-anr-vs-rent-control-on-21-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hansa Udhyog & Anr vs Rent Control … on 21 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}