whether the rent agreed is to be considered as the rent paid by the date of comencement of the Act 2001[2003]under Rajasthan Rent control Act and it can not be considered as a revisied enhanced rent with 10% increase – more than the prescribed in the Act 2001 ?
2019 – ACJ- APEX COURT JUDGMENTS VOL.NO.1/ 2019 APEX COURT DIGEST -VOL.NO.1
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, = Rent deed contained a clause for yearly increase of rent by 10%. The tenant continued to pay rent to the landlord as per the agreed rent with 10% enhancement yearly. The landlord issued notice dated 27.03.2004 stating that with effect from 01.08.2003 upto 29.02.2004, for a period of seven months, the tenant has neither paid or tendered rent, arrears from 01.08.2003 to 29.02.2004 amounting to Rs.1,15,945/ were asked to be deposited
in the bank account of landlord. Notice mentioned that in the event the tenant does not deposit the amount in the account, landlord shall be compelled to carry out legal proceedings for eviction of the tenant.-After the aforesaid notice dated 27.03.2004 the tenant deposited an amount of Rs.95,200/ on 26.04.2004 in the bank account of the landlord .- Landlord filed an Application No.1258 of 2004 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act,
2001”) praying for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. – The tenant filed reply opposing the abovesaid application. The tenant took stand in the application that in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2001, which has come into effect from 01.04.2003, on increasing the rent under the provisions of Section 6 in the prescribed rent of Rs.8,500/ @ 7.5% per annum
the rate of rent from 01.04.2003 comes to be Rs.13,600/ per month. It was stated In the written statement that tenant has deposited rent upto February, 2004 @ Rs.13,600/ per month i.e. a total of Rs.95,200/ in the bank account. – Rejoinder was filed by the landlord where it was pleaded that respondenttenant has been paying rent from August, 2002 @ Rs.16,564/ per month which rent was paid till July, 2003. It was claimed that the
respondenttenant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.16,564/ per month. The Rent Tribunal heard the parties and by its judgment and order dated 22.04.2011 directed for eviction of the tenant. The Rent Tribunal held that the case of tenant that rent is payable @ Rs.13,600/ per month cannot be accepted. The tenant having not deposited at the rate of Rs.16,564/ per month, has
committed default in paying rent -An appeal was filed by the tenant before the Rent Appellate Tribunal which too was dismissed by order dated 15.01.2014. The order of the Rent Tribunal was upheld- The tenant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal filed Writ
Petition in the High Court which writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Ju Against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 0dge vide its judgment and order dated 09.10.2014.9.10.2014 Special Appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 14.12.2015 holding writ appeal as not maintainable.- The High Court in its judgment has held that after the enforcement of the Act, 2001 no agreement can provide for higher revision of rent. The High Court in its judgment has made following observation: “Section 6 of the Act starts with nonobstantive clause, thus no agreement to provide higher or lower rate of revision of rent would operate after commencement of the Act of 2001. The landlord was thus not at liberty to claim rent with enhancement @ 10% per annum.”- Aggrieved against the judgments of the High Court landlord has filed these appeals. –
Apex court held that By the notice given by the landlord dated 27.03.2004 an amount of Rs.1,15,945/ which was due from August, 2003 to February, 2004 was demanded at the rate of Rs.16,564/ per month. The tenant having not deposited the due amount and having deposited amount of only Rs.95,200/ on 26.04.2004 has committed default.- Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the High Court has rightly taken the view that the landlord was not entitled to enhancement of
the rent more than 5% in view of the Act, 2001. The landlord was not at liberty to claim rent with enhancement at the rate of 10% per annum. The High
Court had rightly held that permitting the landlord to demand rent with increase of 10% shall be contrary to the Section 6 of the Act, 2001.-The issue in these appeals pertains to rate of rent and the revision of rent as prescribed by the Act, 2001, hence, only those provisions of both the earlier Act and the Act,2001 need to be noted. Act, 2001 has repealed the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.- The observation of the High Court that landlord was entitled to the rent as was payable on the date of commencement of the Act, 2001 without its revision is perfectly correct. The landlord cannot claim revision of rent as per agreement at the rate of 10% per annum after the enforcement of the Act. The present is not a
case that the landlord is claiming rent after the enforcement of the Act by adding 10% increase in the rent. The landlord’s case throughout is that the rent at the rate of Rs.16,564/ per month was being paid by the tenant since before the commencement of the Act and even after the commencement of the Act, till the month of July, 2003 the tenant paid rent at the rate of
Rs.16,564/ per month.-Section 4 of the Act which deals with the agreed rent provides that rent payable for any premises shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be such as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant. When the tenant was paying the rent of Rs.16,564/ per month before the enforcement of the Act as per the rent agreement, the said amount was agreed amount which wasbeing paid before the enforcement of the Act. It is true that in the agreed amount which was being paid immediately before the commencement of the Act, the landlord cannot increase @ 10% of the rent as per agreement. The increase after the enforcement of the Act shall be in accordance with Section 6 and in the event the tenant does not agree for the said increase,the landlord is free to file application under Section
6 read with Section 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the High Court has not appreciated the true import of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, 2001 in observing that the tenant is not in default. -In the present case arrears demanded by the notice i.e.
Rs.16,564/ per month starting from December, 2003 to February, 2004 totalling Rs.1,15,945/ were required to be paid by the tenant, the tenant having paid only Rs.95,200/ as per his calculation of the rent at the rate of Rs.13,600/ per month has committed default. According to the learned counsel for the tenant, the rent paid by the tenant was sufficient to cover the rent upto December, 2003 and part of January, 2004, admittedly, the arrears as demanded having not been paid and we having found that the landlord has demanded
arrears of rent for seven months according to rate of rent Rs.16,564/ per month which was being paid by the tenant even before the enforcement of the Act, 2001 and after the enforcement of the Act, 2001. The landlord having not added 10% increase in the rent demanded,
there was no breach of Section 6 and the High Court has committed error in allowing the writ petition of the tenant.
2019 – ACJ- APEX COURT JUDGMENTS VOL.NO.1/ 2019 APEX COURT DIGEST -VOL.NO.1
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, = Rent deed contained a clause for yearly increase of rent by 10%. The tenant continued to pay rent to the landlord as per the agreed rent with 10% enhancement yearly. The landlord issued notice dated 27.03.2004 stating that with effect from 01.08.2003 upto 29.02.2004, for a period of seven months, the tenant has neither paid or tendered rent, arrears from 01.08.2003 to 29.02.2004 amounting to Rs.1,15,945/ were asked to be deposited
in the bank account of landlord. Notice mentioned that in the event the tenant does not deposit the amount in the account, landlord shall be compelled to carry out legal proceedings for eviction of the tenant.-After the aforesaid notice dated 27.03.2004 the tenant deposited an amount of Rs.95,200/ on 26.04.2004 in the bank account of the landlord .- Landlord filed an Application No.1258 of 2004 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act,
2001”) praying for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. – The tenant filed reply opposing the abovesaid application. The tenant took stand in the application that in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2001, which has come into effect from 01.04.2003, on increasing the rent under the provisions of Section 6 in the prescribed rent of Rs.8,500/ @ 7.5% per annum
the rate of rent from 01.04.2003 comes to be Rs.13,600/ per month. It was stated In the written statement that tenant has deposited rent upto February, 2004 @ Rs.13,600/ per month i.e. a total of Rs.95,200/ in the bank account. – Rejoinder was filed by the landlord where it was pleaded that respondenttenant has been paying rent from August, 2002 @ Rs.16,564/ per month which rent was paid till July, 2003. It was claimed that the
respondenttenant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.16,564/ per month. The Rent Tribunal heard the parties and by its judgment and order dated 22.04.2011 directed for eviction of the tenant. The Rent Tribunal held that the case of tenant that rent is payable @ Rs.13,600/ per month cannot be accepted. The tenant having not deposited at the rate of Rs.16,564/ per month, has
committed default in paying rent -An appeal was filed by the tenant before the Rent Appellate Tribunal which too was dismissed by order dated 15.01.2014. The order of the Rent Tribunal was upheld- The tenant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal filed Writ
Petition in the High Court which writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Ju Against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 0dge vide its judgment and order dated 09.10.2014.9.10.2014 Special Appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 14.12.2015 holding writ appeal as not maintainable.- The High Court in its judgment has held that after the enforcement of the Act, 2001 no agreement can provide for higher revision of rent. The High Court in its judgment has made following observation: “Section 6 of the Act starts with nonobstantive clause, thus no agreement to provide higher or lower rate of revision of rent would operate after commencement of the Act of 2001. The landlord was thus not at liberty to claim rent with enhancement @ 10% per annum.”- Aggrieved against the judgments of the High Court landlord has filed these appeals. –
Apex court held that By the notice given by the landlord dated 27.03.2004 an amount of Rs.1,15,945/ which was due from August, 2003 to February, 2004 was demanded at the rate of Rs.16,564/ per month. The tenant having not deposited the due amount and having deposited amount of only Rs.95,200/ on 26.04.2004 has committed default.- Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the High Court has rightly taken the view that the landlord was not entitled to enhancement of
the rent more than 5% in view of the Act, 2001. The landlord was not at liberty to claim rent with enhancement at the rate of 10% per annum. The High
Court had rightly held that permitting the landlord to demand rent with increase of 10% shall be contrary to the Section 6 of the Act, 2001.-The issue in these appeals pertains to rate of rent and the revision of rent as prescribed by the Act, 2001, hence, only those provisions of both the earlier Act and the Act,2001 need to be noted. Act, 2001 has repealed the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.- The observation of the High Court that landlord was entitled to the rent as was payable on the date of commencement of the Act, 2001 without its revision is perfectly correct. The landlord cannot claim revision of rent as per agreement at the rate of 10% per annum after the enforcement of the Act. The present is not a
case that the landlord is claiming rent after the enforcement of the Act by adding 10% increase in the rent. The landlord’s case throughout is that the rent at the rate of Rs.16,564/ per month was being paid by the tenant since before the commencement of the Act and even after the commencement of the Act, till the month of July, 2003 the tenant paid rent at the rate of
Rs.16,564/ per month.-Section 4 of the Act which deals with the agreed rent provides that rent payable for any premises shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be such as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant. When the tenant was paying the rent of Rs.16,564/ per month before the enforcement of the Act as per the rent agreement, the said amount was agreed amount which wasbeing paid before the enforcement of the Act. It is true that in the agreed amount which was being paid immediately before the commencement of the Act, the landlord cannot increase @ 10% of the rent as per agreement. The increase after the enforcement of the Act shall be in accordance with Section 6 and in the event the tenant does not agree for the said increase,the landlord is free to file application under Section
6 read with Section 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the High Court has not appreciated the true import of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, 2001 in observing that the tenant is not in default. -In the present case arrears demanded by the notice i.e.
Rs.16,564/ per month starting from December, 2003 to February, 2004 totalling Rs.1,15,945/ were required to be paid by the tenant, the tenant having paid only Rs.95,200/ as per his calculation of the rent at the rate of Rs.13,600/ per month has committed default. According to the learned counsel for the tenant, the rent paid by the tenant was sufficient to cover the rent upto December, 2003 and part of January, 2004, admittedly, the arrears as demanded having not been paid and we having found that the landlord has demanded
arrears of rent for seven months according to rate of rent Rs.16,564/ per month which was being paid by the tenant even before the enforcement of the Act, 2001 and after the enforcement of the Act, 2001. The landlord having not added 10% increase in the rent demanded,
there was no breach of Section 6 and the High Court has committed error in allowing the writ petition of the tenant.
