LAKHPAT JAIN Vs. APPELLATE RENT TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition purporting to be both under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment dated 06.07.2011, passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota in Rent Appeal No.5/2006 by which the statutory appeal of the respondent-applicant-landlord (hereinafter "the applicant-landlord") was allowed, the eviction of the petitioner-non-applicant-tenant (hereinafter "the non-applicant-tenant") directed, and a certificate of possession in favour of the applicant-landlord issued. In the process, the judgment dated 02.01.2006, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota dismissing the applicant-landlord's eviction petition founded upon Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act of 2001") has been set aside.

(2.) The case of the applicant-landlord in his application under Sections 9 and 6 of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal inter alia seeking eviction of the non-applicant-tenant was that the non-applicant-tenant was inducted as tenant in the suit premises, a shop, in the year 1982 on a rent of Rs.250/- per month. It was stated that for over three years prior to the filing of the petition on 24.09.2004, the non-applicant-tenant has been in default in payment of rent, despite the statutory notice dated 31.08.2004 having been served upon the non-applicant-tenant by registered post requiring him to deposit the arrears of rent in the designated account. It was also stated that in terms of Section 6(1)(b) of the Act of 2001, the applicant-landlord was entitled to revision of rent with the base of Rs.250/- in 1982 which in his estimation effective 01.04.2004 was Rs.670/- per month. On service of notice of the eviction petition, a reply of denial was filed by the non-applicant-tenant. It was stated that the ground of default as pleaded was not made out as the due rent had been paid in cash albeit no receipt therefor was ever issued by the applicant-landlord. It was stated that however subsequent to the receipt of notice dated 31.08.2004, the contracted rent of Rs.250/- per month was not being paid in cash but deposited in the applicant-landlord's designated bank account. Revision of rent as prayed for was also contested. On the pleading of the parties, the Rent Tribunal framed two issues, which loosely translated are as under : (i) whether the contracted rent for the shop in issue was Rs.250/- per month in the year 1982 entitling the landlord to revision thereof and (ii) whether the non-applicant-tenant was in default in payment of rent for a period of over four months prior to the filing of the petition despite service of notice indicating the designated bank account into which the arrears of rent were to be deposited consequent to which he was liable to be evicted and the applicant-landlord entitled to a certificate of possession in respect of the tenanted premises.

(3.) On consideration of the matter, the Rent Tribunal, Kota vide its judgment dated 02.01.2006 held that the applicant-landlord was entitled to revision of rent in terms of Section 6(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 consequent to which the revised rent payable was Rs.823/- per month effective 01.04.2003 but the applicant-landlord was entitled to recover the said monthly rent @ Rs.823/- only effective 24.09.2004 i.e. the date of filing of the eviction petition. It was however held that the ground of the non-applicant-tenant being in default in terms of S tion 9(a) of the Act of 2001 was not proved primarily for the reason that the applicant-landlord had purportedly admitted in his cross-examination that he was receiving rent of the tenanted premises in cash, but had not issued any receipt therefor. The prayer for the non-applicant-tenant's eviction was dismissed.