Purushottam Mali vs Narendra Singh Lodha And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 19A of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') has been accepted.

It is, inter-alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 19A of the Act were introduced on 18.10.2017, the proceedings in the present case are pending since 2014 and as the provision is not retrospective, the order could not have been passed.

Further submissions have been made that the direction could not have been given to the petitioner as it was only the petitioner's wife, who was the tenant of the premises and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

The provision of Section 19-A of the Act reads as under :-

"19-A. Power of Tribunal to order payment of rent and arrears thereof during pendency of petition or appeal.- On application of the landlord, the Tribunal shall, after hearing the parties to the petition or appeal, as the case may be, order that the tenant shall pay to the landlord all dues on account of rent forthwith and shall continue to pay the rent during the pendency of the petition or appeal, as the case may be, as and when it becomes due."

A bare look at the provision would reveal that the same is only a machinery provision providing that the tenant shall pay to the landlord all dues on account of rent forthwith and shall continue to pay the rent during the pendency of the petition or appeal and therefore, the plea raised regarding the provision being not retrospective, has no basis.

Once, the provision has been incorporated providing for a power to the Court to order for payment, the same irrespective of the fact whether the petition was filed prior to the amendment or subsequent thereto and/or the arrears pertain to the period prior to the amendment or post amendment would have no implication.

In view thereof, submission in this regard has no substance. In so far as the plea regarding order passed against the petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that the petitioner's wife is also a party to the proceedings and therefore, the plea raised in this regard also has no substance.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.