HARBANS KAUR versus IQBAL SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 29-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
HARBANS KAUR
v.
IQBAL SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12561-12562 of 2017)
JANUARY 29, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – ss.4, 6, 7 & 14 – Default
in payment of rent – Appellant-landlord let out shops to the
respondent-tenant at the rent of Rs.8,500/- per month – Rent deed
dated 19.08.1995 executed between the parties, contained a clause
for yearly increase of rent by 10% – Accordingly, tenant paid the
agreed rent with 10% enhancement yearly – In 2003, tenant was
paying rent at the rate of Rs.16,564/- per month – In April 2003,
tenant made payment upto month of July at the rate of Rs.16,564/-
per month – Thereafter, tenant committed default in payment of rent
– Appellant-landlord issued notice dated 27.03.2004 demanding
arrears from 01.08.2003 to 29.02.2004 amounting to
Rs.1,15,945/- calculated @ Rs.16,564/- per month rent for period
of seven months – Tenant deposited Rs. 95,200/- on 26.04.2004
and took the stand that in accordance with provisions of Act, 2001
w.e.f. 01.04.2003, on increasing the rent under the provisions of
s.6, the prescribed rent of Rs.8500/- month @ 7.5% p.a. from
01.04.2003 comes to Rs.13,600/- p.m. – Accordingly, tenant
deposited rent amount of Rs.95,200/- – Rent Tribunal held that the
case of tenant that rent is payable @ 13,600/- p.m. cannot be
accepted and directed for eviction of tenant – Same was upheld by
Appellate Tribunal – However, High Court held in favour of  the
tenant – On appeal, held: s.6 of the Act, 2001 empowers the landlord
to obtain revision of rent and to calculate the rent from date of
initiation of tenancy – But in the event landlord does not choose to
invoke the machinery of revision of the rent as provided in s.6 and
s.14, the agreed rent between the parties shall not automatically be
changed nor the tenant can unilaterally revise the rent – Further,
s.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 –
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 535
  535
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
In the instant case, tenant was paying the rent of Rs.16,564/- per
month before the enforcement of the Act as per the rent
agreement – Said amount of Rs.16,564/- per month was agreed
amount which was being paid before the enforcement of the Act –
The arrears demanded by the notice  dated 27.03.2004 i.e.
Rs.16,564/- per month starting from August, 2003 to February, 2004
totalling Rs.1,15,945/- were required to be paid by the tenant and
having paid only Rs.95,200/- as per his calculation of the rent at
the rate of Rs.13,600/- per month, he has committed default – Also,
landlord had not added 10% increase in the rent demanded,
therefore, there was no breach of s.6 – High Court has committed
error in allowing the writ petition of the tenant – Order of the Rent
Tribunal restored.
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950
– s.6 – Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – s.6 – Held: A comparison
of scheme of s.6 as it existed in Act, 1950 and s.6 as it brought
under Act, 2001 makes it clear that although the tenant under the
old Act was entitled to apply for fixation of standard rent if the rent
was excessive whereas u/s.6 of the Act, 2001 tenant has not been
given any right to pray for reduction of the rent.
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – s.9 – Notice by landlord
demanding arrears of rent – Plea of tenant to relieve him from
eviction – Tenability of – Held: In the present case arrears demanded
by the notice i.e. Rs.16,564/- per month starting from August, 2003
to February, 2004 totalling Rs.1,15,945/- were required to be paid
by the tenant and 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
– Order of the Rent Tribunal directing eviction of the tenant restored.
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 – ss.4, 6, 7 , 9  & 14 –
Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The important differences between the statutory
scheme as contained in Section 6 of Rajasthan Premises (Control
of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and as now contained in Rajasthan
Rent Control Act, 2001 are: (i) Under the old Act the landlord or
the tenant both were entitled to file a suit for fixation of standard
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
rent, if it is claimed that rent is either low or excessive. Thus,
landlord could have moved the Court f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.