Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, Rekha Borana, JJ.
Mohammed Farook – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1895 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.P. Soni, Sarita Devi Soni
For the Respondents: Sandeep Shah, Nishant Bapna
The limitation of tenants' rights under Section 14(1) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 is constitutional and valid, balancing landlord and tenant interests.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 14(1) - Challenge to constitutionality of provisions curtailing tenant's right to seek revision of rent - Petitioner contended that the Act is discriminatory against tenants - Previous judgments upheld the validity of the Act - Court found no merit in the challenge. (Paras 8, 16, 19)
(B) Social Legislation - The court affirmed that the legislature's decision to limit tenant's rights in rent revisions is valid and within its domain, ensuring landlords' rights while safeguarding tenant interests through due process. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the validity of Section 14(1) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which restricts the tenant's right to seek rent revision, arguing it is discriminatory compared to the previous Act of 1950 that allowed equal rights for both parties.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the Act of 2001, stating it is a valid social legislation that does not violate constitutional rights, affirming the legislature's discretion in enacting such laws.
Issues: Whether Section 14(1) of the Act of 2001 is unconstitutional for denying tenants the right to seek revision of rent compared to the previous Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation imposed by the Act of 2001 on tenants' rights is a valid exercise of legislative power aimed at balancing the interests of landlords and tenants in a changing economic landscape.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“(i) That the provision of Section 14 (1) of The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Section 6 and 7 of The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 curtailing the right of filing the petition under Section 6 of The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 may kindly be declared ultra virus to the constitution.
(ii) That the petitioner may be granted a right to file petition under Section 6 of The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal and the rent may be revised as per the provisions and formula given under this section for petitioner for disputed shop.
(iii) That the cost of writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
(iv) That any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the property situated near Railway Station, Jodhpur and running a shop in it in the name of 'Hind Silk Store'. It is averred by the petitioner that initially the said shop was rented out to his father in the year 1967 for a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month however, the same was enhanced to Rs. 120/- per month w.e.f. March 1982.
3. The landlord filed a suit under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1950') which was ultimately decreed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 02.11.2006, whereby it fixed standard rent @ Rs. 6,000/- per month for the shop in question.
4. The father of the petitioner filed first appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2006 and the landlord also filed a cross appeal against the same. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide Judgment dated 23.04.2015, disposed of both the appeals and fixed the standard rent for the shop in question @ Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2002. It was also ordered that arrears of rent are to be paid by the defendant within a period of six months to the plaintiff landlord, else the same shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
5. The father of the petitioner challenged the Judgment dated 23.04.2015 by way of an S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the Hon'bl'e Supreme Court did not interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge qua fixation of standard rent, but ordered for payment of arrears in 12 equal monthly installments commencing from 01.10.2015.
6. After coming of the New Rent Control Act into force, the landlord again preferred an application for revision of rent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 2001') before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan. However, the said application was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.10.2017.
7. As informed, against the judgment dated 11.10.2017, the landlord preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending consideration.
8. Now, the petitioner-tenant has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of Section 14 (1) of the Act of 2001 contending that the right to seek revision of rent is available only to the landlord and not to the tenant and therefore, Section 14 (1) of the Act of 2001 being discriminatory, be declared ultra vires to the Constitution. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1950 provided an equal right to the landlord and the tenant to institute a suit for fixation of the standard rent however, under the Act of 2001, only the landlord has a right to seek revision of rent and the tenant has been provided no such right. It is contended that Section 14 (1) of the Act of 2001 curtails the right of the tenant to seek revision of rent and the same being discriminatory, is liable to be declared unconstitutional.
