[2026:RJ-JD:7275]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25/2026 Prakash Chand Bafna S/o Ramlal Bafna, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 351, Ummed Heritage, Defense Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Marudhar Vikas Mandal Khadi Bhandar, Jodhpur Through Mantri Surendra Bhadur Singh S/o Shri Yadunath Singh, R/o Plot No. 81, Sangam Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur.

2. Ms. V.C.O. Warehouse, Through Prakash Chandra S/o Shri Ramlal Ji Bafna, R/o C-11-A, Marudhar Industrial Area, 1^st Phase, Basni, Jodhpur.

3. Vineet Bafna S/o Shri Prakash Chand Bafna, R/o 351, Ummed Heritage, Defense Road, Ratanada Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

10/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Tribunal”) in Petition No.251/2023 (NCV No.268/2023) : Marudhar Vikas Mandal Khadi Bhandar Vs. M/s. V.C.O. Warehouse, whereby the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the application under Section 19(A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, filed by the respondent No.1-

landlord and directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit the rent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant submitted that in pursuance of the rent agreement, executed between the parties, the petitioner-tenant was required to pay the rent of the rented premises, which was being used by the petitioner-tenant. The respondent-landlord has preferred an application for eviction before the learned Rent Tribunal on the ground of default in payment of rent and the same is pending consideration. It is further submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondent-landlord has filed an application under Section 19(A) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 for depositing the due rent for a period of 17 months with an increase of 5% as per clause of the rent agreement.

3. It is further submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal, while deciding the application has committed error in directing the petitioner-tenant to deposit the rent amount from 06.11.2023 (date of filing the application) to September, 2024. It is argued that as per Section 6 of the Rent Control, Act, 2001, the enhancement of the rent is only permissible at the rate of 5% per annum. Learned counsel pointed out that as per Section 14(5) of the Rent Control Act, which provides the procedure for revision of rent, if any revision of rent is required, the applicant is required to file an application before the Rent Tribunal. However, no such application for revision has been filed. He therefore, submits that while deciding the application, the learned Rent Tribunal has grossly erred in directing the petitioner-tenant to deposit the due rent to the respondent-landlord.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the respondent-landlord has filed the application for payment of due rent and the learned Tribunal, while deciding the application, has rightly held that increase of rent and other adjustment shall be the subject matter of the suit and the same can only be decided after the appreciation of the evidence, but as an interim measure, the learned Rent Tribunal has decided the application and directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit the due rent (for a period of 17 months) to the respondent-landlord and the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioner-tenant to deposit the due rent amount to the respondent-landlord.

5. A perusal of order impugned reveals that the Rent Tribunal, while deciding the application under Section 19(A) of the Act, has merely directed the petitioner–tenant to deposit the due rent for a period of 17 months from the date of filing of the application as an interim measure and subject to final orders passed in the main petition.

6. Having conside