1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3192/2006 (Mahendra Pal Vs. Gauri Shankar & Ors.) Date of order : March 24th, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. H.S. Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by Rent Tribunal, Bikaner under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, so also the order dated 19.3.2005 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Appellate Authority in appeal against the order dated 24.2.2004 whereby the appellate authority has upheld the order passed by Rent Tribunal. 2 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 6-B of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, 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 7.5% per annum. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case though initially the premises were rented out to the petitioner on 1.6.1986 but later on after construction of new market in 1998, the shop in dispute was taken on rent by the petitioner in the year 1998. Therefore, as per Section 6-B of the Act, the commencement of tenancy was to be considered by Rent Tribunal from the year 1998 and not from 1.6.1986 when initially the shop was taken on rent by the petitioner. Therefore, both the courts below have committed an error while determining the rent after taking into account the date as 1.6.1986 into consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the concurrent findings given by both the courts below do not require any interference by this Court. So also, it is contended that admittedly the shop was given on rent to the petitioner on 1.6.1986 at the rate of Rs.500/- but in the year 1998, a new market was constructed and at that time, the petitioner was assured by the 3 respondents that one shop will be given to him again after new construction. Admittedly in the year 1998, after new construction, the petitioner was given one shop on rent in lieu of the assurance given to the petitioner at the rent of Rs.650/-. Meaning thereby, in fact the tenancy was commenced on 1.6.1986. It is also pointed out that no written rent deed was executed in between the parties but admittedly the petitioner is tenant of respondents since 1.6.1986. Only in the year 1998 when new construction was made then after raising new construction, the shop was given to the petitioner. After hearing both the parties and perusing Section 6-B of the Act, I am of the opinion that initially the petitioner was given shop on rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and after raising new construction in the year 1998, only for the purpose of new construction, the shop in question was handed over to the respondent and again after raising construction, the shop was handed over to the petitioner. Therefore, obviously commencement of tenancy will remain as 1.6.1986. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that according to Section 6-B of the Act, the tenancy was to be treated from the year 1998 when newly constructed shop was given to the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no force in 4 the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. Arun/-