Alok Sharma, J.

A challenge has been made by the petitioner-landlord (hereinafter `the landlord') to the order dated 29-11-2013 passed by District Judge Baran as the Appellate Rent Tribunal (hereinafter `the Appellate Rent Tribunal') under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter `2001 Act').

2. Counsel for the landlord has submitted that the order dated 29-11-2013 is vitiated inasmuch as the Appellate Rent Tribunal, subsequent to remand under order dated 18-7-2013 passed by this court in SBCWP No. 10298/2011, has failed to address, despite directions of this court, the case of the landlord with reference to ground agitated under Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act, where under eviction of the tenant is to be directed where the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession or has been allotted a premises suitable/adequate for his requirement. It has been submitted that vide order dated 18-7-2013, this court directed as under:-

"Both the Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties jointly agreed to a disposal of the instant petition on the following terms:-

1. The order dated 8-7-2011 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Baran is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner landlord being denied the right to pursue his eviction proceedings under the Act of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in respect of grounds based on default under Sections 9(a), 9(j) as also under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 Act for revision of rent;

2. The landlord shall not be allowed to agitate the ground based on bona fide and reasonable necessity under Section 9(i) of the Act of 2001 in view of the withdrawal of the suit pending before the competent civil court under its order dated 11-11-2003;

3. The Appellate Rent Tribunal Baran shall decide the appeal now under remand to it within a period of four months of presentation of certified copy of this order."

3. Counsel for the landlord has submitted that therefore following the remand, the Appellate Rent Tribunal was under a duty to address the case of the landlord with reference to evidence before it qua Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act.

4. It has been further submitted that the impugned order dated 29-11-2013 is also vitiated on the ground that in computing the revised rent under Section 6 of the 2001 Act the Appellate Rent Tribunal has committed two palpable errors (i) the commencement of the tenancy has not been taken from 1974, when the premises was first let out to the tenant by the erstwhile landlord, but from 1978 when the premises in question was purchased by the landlord from the erstwhile landlord and the tenancy attorned accordingly, and (ii) the Appellate Rent Tribunal has also erred in construing the amendment to Section 6(2) of the 2001 Act effective 22-2-2006 retrospectively, even while this court in the case of Daljeet Singh v. Appellate Rent Tribunal Sriganganagar [2009(2) CDR 1213 (Raj.)] has held that it is prospective in nature. It has been submitted that in the law obtaining the landlord is entitled to revision of rent under Section 6 of the 2001 Act taking the commencement of the tenancy from 1974, when the premises was first let out to the tenant by the erstwhile landlord, and revision of rent at the rate of 7.5% per annum upto 21-2- 2006, and thereafter at the rate of 5% per annum.

5. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Mamoon Khalid, has fairly admitted that indeed the Appellate Rent Tribunal in terms of the specific directions passed by this court on 18-7-2013, was under an obligation to address the case of the landlord with reference to Section 9(j) of the 2001 Act and the matter may be remanded to the Appellate Tribunal on this count. He has however submitted that the revision of rent by the Appellate Rent Tribunal is in accordance with law as amendment to Section 6 of the 2001 effective 22-2-2006, making yearly enhancement at 5% is retrospective in nature. It has been further submitted that in the event the landlord had filed an application under Section 6 of the 2