Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harbans Kaur, is the landlord of Shop No.3 and 4 in Plot No.362, which was let out to the respondent-tenant, Iqbal Singh, in August 1995 at a monthly rent of Rs.8,500/- under a rent deed dated 19.08.1995. The deed contained a clause for yearly increase of rent by 10%. The tenant paid rent with 10% enhancement yearly, and by 2003, the rent was Rs.16,564/- per month, paid up to July 2003. The landlord issued a notice on 27.03.2004 demanding arrears of rent from 01.08.2003 to 29.02.2004 at Rs.16,564/- per month, totaling Rs.1,15,945/-. The tenant deposited only Rs.95,200/- on 26.04.2004, claiming that under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (which came into effect on 01.04.2003), the rent should be revised to Rs.13,600/- per month based on Section 6. The landlord filed an eviction application under Section 9 of the Act for arrears of rent. The Rent Tribunal ordered eviction, holding that the tenant had defaulted. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this. The High Court, in a writ petition, set aside the eviction orders, holding that the landlord could not claim rent with 10% increase as it exceeded the 5% limit under Section 6. The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that the rent being paid at the commencement of the Act (Rs.16,564/-) is the agreed rent under Section 4, and the tenant cannot unilaterally revise it downwards. The Court clarified that Section 6 provides for revision of rent by the landlord, not the tenant. The tenant's deposit of Rs.95,200/- was insufficient, constituting default. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the eviction orders of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Agreed Rent - Section 4, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - The rent payable for any premises shall be as agreed between the landlord and tenant, subject to other provisions of the Act. The rent being paid at the commencement of the Act (Rs.16,564/- per month) is the agreed rent, and the tenant cannot unilaterally revise it downwards under Section 6. (Paras 7-8) B) Rent Control - Revision of Rent - Section 6, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 6 provides for revision of rent in respect of existing tenancies based on a formula, but it does not entitle the tenant to reduce the agreed rent. The revision under Section 6 is to be sought by the landlord, not the tenant. (Paras 8-10) C) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 9, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - The tenant deposited only Rs.95,200/- instead of the demanded Rs.1,15,945/- at the rate of Rs.16,564/- per month, constituting default. The tenant's unilateral reduction of rent is not permissible, and eviction was rightly ordered by the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. (Paras 2-3, 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.16,564/- per month as per the agreement or at the revised rate of Rs.13,600/- per month under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, and whether the tenant committed default in payment of rent justifying eviction under Section 9 of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 09.10.2014 and the Division Bench judgment dated 14.12.2015, and restored the eviction orders passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 22.04.2011 and the Appellate Rent Tribunal dated 15.01.2014.
Law Points
- Rent Control
- Revision of Rent
- Agreed Rent
- Default in Payment of Rent
- Section 4
- Section 6
- Section 7
- Section 9
- Section 14
- Rajasthan Rent Control Act
- 2001
