SBCWP NO.218/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.218/2008. Rambharosi Lal Vs. Sushil Kumar and ors. Date of order :- 10/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. **** The petitioner has preferred this writ petition regarding determination of the provisional rent mainly on the round that the court below committed grave illegality while determining the rent with enhanced rate of 7.5% instead of 5% every year despite of the amendment made in the Rent Control Act, 2001. It has been submitted that since the amendment was made in the year 2006, it should have been treated to have retrospective effect therefore, in view of the amended provision, determination for enhancement of rent should have been 5% per annum. The counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had also raised other grounds for challenging the order dated 7/9/2006 but the appellate court failed to consider those grounds. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal below. Perusal of the order in appeal dated 14/11/2007 para 4, reveals that petitioner had not pressed any other ground taken in appeal other than one that rent should not have been enhanced by SBCWP NO.218/08. 2 calculating the same @ 7.5% yearly basis in view of the amendment and instead of such enhancement, necessary calculation should have been made @ 5% per annum as per the amended provision. I have perused the amended provision of Section 6(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 which is reproduced hereunder:- “(b) where the premises have been let out on or after 1st January, 1950, the rent payable at the time of commencement of the tenancy shall be liable to be increased at the rate of [5%] per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the rate [5%] per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of this Act.” Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that same has not been given retrospective effect thus, there is no error in the impugned order where rent is determined after calculating it at the rate of 7.5% yearly till the amendment in the provision 6(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 was brought and subsequent to the amendment, enhancement of the rent has been calculated @5%. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the impugned-order does not suffer from any error or infirmity so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil