Summary
A tenant could not use the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 to retrospectively recompute and reduce the agreed rent being paid when the Act commenced. The landlord demanded that existing rent, without adding the contract’s further 10% annual increase. Partial payment based on the tenant’s lower calculation did not clear the arrears demanded by notice or avoid default. The eviction order was restored.
Issues
- Whether the tenant could unilaterally reduce the existing agreed rent by applying the statutory revision formula from inception of tenancy.
- Whether partial payment leaving less than four months’ rent unpaid after notice avoided eviction.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4, 6 and 14(1), Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001The existing agreed rent did not change automatically; revision was available through the statutory machinery. The tenant could not retrospectively reduce it, while future increases contrary to the Act were unenforceable. (¶¶ 7–10, 14–20)
- Section 9(a) and second proviso, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001The notice demanded seven months’ arrears at the lawful existing rate; the tenant had to clear those arrears within the statutory period, and the partial remittance did not cure the default. (¶ 21–24)
Held
- Unlike the former standard-rent scheme, the 2001 Act did not confer a tenant’s right to apply to reduce excessive agreed rent. If the landlord did not invoke Sections 6 and 14, the existing rent did not automatically change and the tenant could not lower it unilaterally. (¶ 11–17)
- The ₹16,564 monthly rent paid before commencement and through July 2003 was the agreed existing rent. The landlord could not add a further contractual 10% increase after commencement, but had not done so in this demand. The High Court misapplied that restriction to the existing rate. (¶¶ 17–20, 24)
- The demanded August 2003–February 2004 arrears had to be paid at that rate. Payment of ₹95,200 based on a unilateral ₹13,600 rate did not discharge the notice. Reallocating that remittance to argue that fewer than four months remained unpaid did not relieve the tenant from eviction on these facts. (¶ 21–24)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside and Rent Tribunal’s eviction order restored.