The court affirmed that landlords are entitled to seek eviction if tenants breach rental agreements by failing to pay dues for four months, interpreting the notice provision critically.

Order :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Tribunal’) in Rent Appeal No.24/2017 (CIS No.33/2017), whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 – Smt. Akhtar Begum has been allowed and a certificate of recovery of possession issued, while setting aside the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Tribunal’) in Rent Case No.09/2011.

2. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal and holding that the present petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 9(a) of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2001’).

3. Having apprised the Court about the basic facts that the subject shop was let out by Samir Khan to Prabhatilal Sharma (petitioners’ father), learned counsel submitted that after the death of Samir Khan, his son (Sharafat Khan) used to collect the rent and an agreement came to be executed between said Sharafat Khan and Kamla Bai in the year 2009-2010. Thereafter, Sharafat Khan also passed away and the respondent - Akhtar Begum, only surviving legal heir of Samir Khan started receiving the rent.

4. While informing that Akhtar Begum used to issue rent receipts, learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deciding the issue no.1 against the petitioners and holding that the petitioners defaulted in making payment of rent for more than four months.

5. In relation to the above finding, learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the rent receipts (Exhibits 25 to 32) and submitted that as per the rent agreement or the conduct of the parties, the rent was payable month to month basis commencing from 16^th to 15^th of subsequent month and was fixed as Rs.3,200/-per month.

6. He emphasised that such fact is evident from the rent receipt dated 16.07.2010 (Exhibit-29), which clearly establishes that the rent for the period from 16.06.2010 to 16.07.2010 had been paid by the petitioners to the landlord on 16.07.2010.

7. He submitted that the respondents-landlord issued a notice dated 02.04.2011 to the petitioners in terms of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001, although four months’ rent had not become due on said date. Learned counsel also argued that since the notice in question did not mention the amount due, it was not a valid notice in the eye of law. In other words, learned counsel argued that since on the date of issuance of the notice, a period of four months was not over, the judgment and order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law.

8. He contended that the last rent was paid on 15.12.2010 (Exhibit-59) (for the period 16^th November to 15^th December), whereafter, the first rent became due on 15^th January; second rent became due on 15^th February; third rent became due on 15^th March and fourth rent became due on 15^th April, whereas, the notice in terms of proviso to Section 9(a) had been issued to the petitioners on 2^nd April, before the period of 4 months was complete.

9. Inviting Court’s attention towards the provisions contained in clause (a) of Section 9 of the Act of 2001 and second proviso thereof, learned counsel argued that the provision in no ambiguous terms provides that the landlord has to issue a notice when the rent for four months has not been paid. He arg