1. - This bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law, therefore, they are heard and decided by this common judgment. For taking into consideration the facts of the case, the facts of Writ Petition No.5487/2007 are being taken into consideration for convenience.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing for the petitioners, raised following legal issues for consideration of the Court:-

"(i) Whether in view of the amendment in Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') pertain to revision of rent, the amendment would apply prospectively or retrospectively, as by virtue of amendment vide the Notification dated 22.02.2006, the expression 7.5% whenever occurring is substituted by 5%."

3. For the aforesaid question, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time when the Rajasthan Rent Control Act of 2001 was brought into effect, there vision of rent was to be made with increase @ 7.5% per annum. However, vide the Notification dated 22nd February, 2006, 7.5% is substituted by 5% and, thereby, now yearly increase of rent would be determined by the Rent Tribunal, at the rate of 5% per annum, but in the present matter, the Tribunal had revised the rent taking into consideration 7.5% increase on yearly basis. After passing of the order by the Rent Tribunal, even in appeal, the Rent Appellate Tribunal maintained the order and the same position remains even after filing of the review petition before the Appellate Tribunal, bringing the fact in their knowledge that by virtue of the amendment in Section 6, vide the Notification dated 22nd February, 2006, increase of rent can be made only on 5% yearly basis though orders of Tribunal were prior to the amendment. However, the review petition filed in that regard was also dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the amendment vide the Notification dated 22.02.2006 is having intention to apply retrospectively, thus, the Tribunals below were under obligation to revise the order for determination of rent and determination should have been made afresh, taking into consideration that the rent has to be increased only on 5% yearly basis in view of the amendment pursuant to the Notification dated 22.02.2006. It is urged that it being a case of substitution of the provision, thus, the amendment shoauld be treated to have been given effect from the date when the original enactment was made effective and, in that case, the determination of rent against the petitioner, based on 7.5% increase on yearly basis becomes illegal. The payer of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, thus, that the order of the Rent Tribunal, as well as Appellate Rent Tribunal should be quashed and the rent be determined after taking increase at the rate of 5% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amendment vide the Notification dated 22.02.2006 is prospective in application, because perusal of the amendment does not show that either expressly or impliedly, the Legislature is intent to give its effect retrospectively. In sequence of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it was further urged that the Rent Tribunal, as well as the Rent Appellate Tribunal have already decided many of he matters prior to amendment, pertaining to determination of rent based on the law existing prior to amendment and, thereby, revision of rent in thousands of cases is based on 7.5% increase per annum. If the amended provision is given effect retrospectively, it may give rise to re-opening of all the cases already decided and settled, more so by virtue of such order, right already vesting in favour of those persons, including the non-petitioner. The last submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the benefit of increase at the rate of 5% per annum can be permitted from the date of amendment, hence increase of rent, at the rate of 5% per annum may be permitted f