RAGHUVEER PRASAD SHARMA Vs. MANJU BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, who is tenant in the premise, of which respondent Smt. Manju Bansal is landlord. Tenancy commenced on 1.10.1984 with a rent of Rs. 500/- per month. When the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act') came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2003, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 6 of the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short 'the Rent Tribunal') which was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2006 by the Rent Tribunal against which an appeal was filed by the respondent-landlord before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Kota (for short 'the Appellate Rent Tribunal') which was allowed vide order dated 25.4.2008 and on revision, rent was fixed at Rs. 1,050/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2003. According to the respondent-landlord, a sum of Rs. 69,085/- was due towards arrears of rent. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 9(a) of the Act against the petitioner-tenant on the premise that a sum of Rs. 69,085/- was due to be paid by the petitioner-tenant on revision of rent as per order dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Rent Tribunal under Section 6 of the Act. After adjustment of amount of Rs. 42,323/-, which was deposited by the petitioner-tenant in Saving Bank Account No. 697 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Aerodrum Circle, Kota, total unpaid amount of arrears of rent as on 31.7.2008 was Rs. 29,762/-. As per condition No. 1 of the agreement between the parties, if the amount of rent is not paid by 5th day of the month, interest @ Rs. 1.50 per hundred per month was payable. Thus, total amount of Rs. 1,862/- was payable as interest. The respondent-landlord served a notice on the tenant in relation to unpaid amount of arrears of rent on 23.5.2008 whereafter the tenant deposited amount of Rs. 1,313/- on 9.6.2008; Rs. 19,013/- on 3.7.2008; Rs. 1,313/- on 8.7.2008; Rs. 1,315/- on 8.8.2008. Thus, total amount of Rs. 22,954/- was paid by the tenant and still amount of Rs. 5,670/- remained unpaid. He has thus committed default in payment of rent and is liable to be evicted. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 3.4.2012 dismissed the eviction petition and held that if certain amount was due to be paid pursuant to revision of rent under Section 6 of the Act, the same can be recovered by the landlord as the order aforesaid was executable and she can initiate execution proceedings, but non-payment of differential amount of arrears of rent in this behalf cannot be said to be default in the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. Further, the Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 8.1.2015 has reversed that finding of the Rent Tribunal and held that even non-payment of such amount, despite service of notice under Section 9 of the Act, would tantamount to default. It, therefore, directed eviction of the petitioner-tenant. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant. Mr. Rajveer Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was presently paying rent @ Rs. 1,748/- per month. Even since revision of rent, he is regularly paying rent in the bank account of the respondent-landlord. Reference is made to the receipt of months of April, 2015 to July, 2015. The Appellate Rent Tribunal while revising the rent under Section 6 of the Act required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,050/- as rent in the bank account of respondent. The petitioner has quantified and paid total sum of Rs. 43,123/- in the bank account of the respondent and thereafter further deposited a sum of Rs. 2,626/- and Rs. 19,113/-. Thus, total amount of Rs. 64,762/- was deposited by him. Balance amount of Rs. 1,286/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the bank account of the respondent vide receipt dated 5.4.2012. The petitioner on obtaining copy of order of revision of rent dated 25.4.2008 made deposit of Rs. 1,313/- vide receipt dated 9.6.2008 and thereafter also further deposited rent on 8.7.2008, 1.8.2008, 8.9.2008, 8.10.2008 and 8.11.2008. There was thus no default as alleged. It is argued that Appellate Rent Tribunal erroneously held that total remaining amount was Rs. 3,808/-. In doing so, the Appellate Rent Tribunal has excluded amount of Rs. 1,862/- that was claimed by the respondent in the calculation of arrears as amount of interest. This has been done by the respondent unilaterally on her own by treating delay in payment of rent in further succeeding months. On the date of notice, payable amount of rent was Rs. 62,176/- not Rs. 64,915/- as alleged by the respondent. Even if some amount has remained due or unpaid towards the arrears of revision of rent for the period anterior to the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, that cannot be taken as non-payment of the same as the same would be recovered by the landlord by getting the aforesaid order executed and order of eviction cannot be passed by taking the same as default in the meaning of Section 9 of the Act.

(2.) Mr. Pradeep Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord opposed the writ petition and supported order passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal. He has argued that the Appellate Rent Tribunal was fully justified indirecting eviction of the petitioner-tenant because it held that pursuant to the computation made by both the parties, differential amount of rent was still payable by the tenant to the landlord. Tenant had admitted a sum of Rs. 1,286/- as due whereas as per the landlord even after deduction of amount of interest, Rs. 3,808/- was payable. It was difference of amount of Rs. 3,037/- in the quantification made by both the parties. If the due amount of rent had not been paid despite notice, it has to be treated as default. Calculation of differential amount has rightly arrived by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that at the time of taking disputed premise on rent, rent note was executed by the parties wherein they agreed that if the rent is not paid by the tenant by 5th day of succeeding month, then landlord will be entitled to interest @ 1.50% per month. Under that condition, the respondent-landlord has rightly claimed amount of Rs. 1,862/- towards interest. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon decision in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Bhagwati Lal, 2005 CJ(Rent)Rajasthan 274. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that contention of petitioner-tenant that eviction of the tenant cannot be sought on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent which has been revised in accordance with provisions of the Act is against the facts and contrary to law as well. Eviction on account of default in payment of arrears of revised rent can be directed. It has been submitted that amount of arrears of rent Rs. 22,592/- for the period from 21.5.2008 to 30.4.2008 consists of 15 months of rent and no amount of interest is included therein. The petitioner-tenant has admitted vide Annexure-1 before the Rent Tribunal that amount of Rs. 19,710/- was due from February, 2007 to April, 2008 which is equal to rent of 15 months, therefore, the same falls within the meaning of wording "amount of rent due from him (tenant) for four months" as provided under Section 9(a) of the Act. As per Section 9(a) of the Act, the landlord is only required to prove that he has provided information of his bank account and the arrears of rent till the date of notice has not been paid within 30 days from the date of service of notice. If it is considered that the amount of rent which is due should be of consecutive four months, then purpose of Section 9(a) of the Act would fail. It is wrong to say that if any amount is due towards arrears of rent consequent upon revision of rent, then the same can be recovered by getting the order of revision of rent executed and not by filing eviction petition. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the words "demanding arrears of rent", Tenant has not made payment of arrears of rent" and "amount of rent due from him for four months" ought to be interpreted in right manner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon decision of this Court in Rashid Khan vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, 2005 1 RajLW 519.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material available on record.