KAPIL CHANDLA Vs. RENT TRIBUNAL, KOTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant matter has been listed before us to examine the legal questions which have been referred by the ld.Single Judge vide order dt.19.02.2014 on two conflicting views which have been expressed by two coordinate Single Benches of this court in reference to interpretation of Sec.19(10) and Sec.20(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. Primarily, the question which arise for our consideration, is as to whether the Appellate Rent Tribunal, in a pending appeal, against order of the Rent Tribunal, has a discretion vested to pass interlocutory order u/Sec.19(10) of the Act, 2001 or it is dependent and has to be in consonance/conformity with sub-sec.(3) of Sec.20 of the Act, 2001.

(2.) The ld.Single Judge of this court in Naveen Sharma Vs. Ram Dayal & Others, 2011 3 RajLW 2060 decided on 10.02.2011, after examining the scope of Secs.19(10) & 20(3) of the Act, 2001 has observed that the discretion vested with the Appellate Rent Tribunal of passing interlocutory orders, pending appeal, u/Sec.19(10) has to be restricted for grant of mesne profit, which cannot be at a rate more than provided/contemplated u/sub-sec.(3) of Sec.20 of the Act, 2001. The relevant extract of the judgment passed by the ld.Single Judge in Naveen Sharma's case is reproduced ad infra:-

(3.) It appears that prior thereto this very question arose for consideration before the ld.Single Judge of this court at the Main Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Paras Mal Dhariwal Vs. LRs of Amardatt Vyas & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6548/2008) decided on 14.09.2009 regarding the discretion vested with the Appellate Rent Tribunal for passing interlocutory order as contemplated u/sub-sec.(10) of Sec.19 of the Act and taking note of the wholesome view of the matter and so also Sec.19(10) & Sec.20(3) along with Explanation appended thereto of the Act, 2001, the ld.Single Judge was of the view that the discretion vested with the Appellate Rent Tribunal for grant of interlocutory order cannot be circumscribed by any conditions and cannot be precluded from staying the payment of mesne profit at the enhanced rate of rent as provided u/sub-sec.(3) of Sec.20 of the Act, 2001 during pendency of appeal and as regards grant of interlocutory order, pending appeal, is concerned, the ld.Single Judge was of the view that it has to be considered and decided by the Appellate Rent Tribunal exercising its discretion reasonably, judicially and on the basis of settled principles governing the grant of interim relief. The relevant extract of the judgment dt.14.09.2009 is reproduced ad infra:-