In the present case arrears demanded by the notice i.e. Rs.16,564/­ per month starting from December, 2003 to February, 2004 totalling Rs.1,15,945/­ were required to be paid by the tenant, the tenant having paid only Rs.95,200/­ as per his calculation of the rent at the rate of Rs.13,600/­ per month has committed default. According to the learned counsel for the tenant, the rent paid by the tenant was sufficient to cover the rent upto December, 2003 and part of January, 2004, admittedly, the arrears as demanded having not been paid and we having found that the landlord has demanded arrears of rent for seven months according to rate of rent Rs.16,564/­ per month which was being paid by the tenant even before the enforcement of the Act, 2001 and after the enforcement of the Act, 2001. The landlord having not added 10% increase in the rent demanded, there was no breach of Section 6 and the High Court has committed error in allowing the writ petition of the tenant.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12561­12562 OF 2017
HARBANS KAUR … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
IQBAL SINGH & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These appeals have been filed by the appellant, the
landlord of the premises in question, challenging the
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 09.10.2014
allowing the writ petition filed by the tenant setting
aside the order of eviction passed by Rent Tribunal as
well as Appellate Rent Tribunal. Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court vide its judgment dated 14.12.2015
dismissed the Special Appeal(Writ) of the landlord as
not maintainable.
2

  1. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for
    deciding these appeals are:
    The appellant is landlord of Shop No.3 and 4 in
    Plot No.362 which was let out to the respondent­tenant
    in August, 1995 at the rent of Rs.8,500/­ per month. A
    Rent Deed dated 19.08.1995 was executed between the
    parties. Rent deed contained a clause for yearly
    increase of rent by 10%. The tenant continued to pay
    rent to the landlord as per the agreed rent with 10%
    enhancement yearly. In the year 2003 the tenant was
    making payment of rent at the rate of Rs.16,564/­ per
    month. In April, 2003, rent which was paid by the
    tenant was Rs. 16,564/­, upto July, 2003 the tenant
    paid the rent at the rate of Rs.16,564 per month. The
    landlord issued notice dated 27.03.2004 stating that
    with effect from 01.08.2003 upto 29.02.2004, for a
    period of seven months, the tenant has neither paid or
    tendered rent, arrears from 01.08.2003 to 29.02.2004
    amounting to Rs.1,15,945/­ were asked to be deposited
    in the bank account of landlord. Notice mentioned that
    in the event the tenant does not deposit the amount in
    3
    the account, landlord shall be compelled to carry out
    legal proceedings for eviction of the tenant. After the
    aforesaid notice dated 27.03.2004 the tenant deposited
    an amount of Rs.95,200/­ on 26.04.2004 in the bank
    account of the landlord. Landlord filed an Application
    No.1258 of 2004 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent
    Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act,
    2001”) praying for eviction on the ground of arrears of
    rent. The tenant filed reply opposing the abovesaid
    application. The tenant took stand in the application
    that in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2001,
    which has come into effect from 01.04.2003, on
    increasing the rent under the provisions of Section 6
    in the prescribed rent of Rs.8,500/­ @ 7.5% per annum
    the rate of rent from 01.04.2003 comes to be
    Rs.13,600/­ per month. It was stated In the written
    statement that tenant has deposited rent upto February,
    2004 @ Rs.13,600/­ per month i.e. a total of
    Rs.95,200/­ in the bank account.
  2. Rejoinder was filed by the landlord where it was
    pleaded that respondent­tenant has been paying rent
    4
    from August, 2002 @ Rs.16,564/­ per month which rent
    was paid till July, 2003. It was claimed that the
    respondent­tenant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.16,564/­
    per month. The Rent Tribunal heard the parties and by
    its judgment and order dated 22.04.2011 directed for
    eviction of the tenant. The Rent Tribunal held that the
    case of tenant that rent is payable @ Rs.13,600/­ per
    month cannot be accepted. The tenant having not
    deposited at the rate of Rs.16,564/­ per month, has
    committed default in paying rent. An appeal was filed
    by the tenant before the Rent Appellate Tribunal which
    too was dismissed by order dated 15.01.2014. The order
    of the Rent Tribunal was upheld. The tenant aggrieved
    by the order of the Appellate Tribunal filed Writ
    Petition No.6965 of 2014 in the High Court which writ
    petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide
    its judgment and order dated 09.10.2014. Against the
    judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.10.2014
    Special Appeal (Writ) No.2075 of 2014 was filed which
    was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment
    dated 14.12.2015 holding writ appeal as not
    5
    maintainable. Aggrieved against the judgments of the
    High Court landlord has filed these appeals.
  3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
    High Court committed error in interpreting the
    provisions of Sections 4, 6, 7 and 14 of the Act, 2001.
    He submits that the rent which was being paid by the
    tenant on the enforcement of the Act i.e. w.e.f.
    01.04.2003 was Rs.16,564/­ per month, the tenant was
    liable to pay the rent at the same rate. It is not the
    case of the appellants that they are demanding rent
    with the hike of 10% after the enforcement of Act,
  4. The tenant, however, is calculating the rent by
    revising the rent with effect from year 1995 as per the
    provisions of Section 6 of the Act. The tenant’s case
    that rent payable was Rs.13,600/­ per month is
    erroneous. By the notice given by the landlord dated
    27.03.2004 an amount of Rs.1,15,945/­ which was due
    from August, 2003 to February, 2004 was demanded at the
    rate of Rs.16,564/­ per month. The tenant having not
    deposited the due amount and having deposited amount of
    only Rs.95,200/­ on 26.04.2004 has committed default.
    6
    The rent which was being paid on the date of the
    commencement of the Act, 2001, shall be treated as
    agreed rent between the parties. There is change in the
    statutory scheme of Act, 2001 which now entitles
    landlord to seek revision of the rent. As per the
    provisions of Act, 2001 the tenant has not been given a
    right to get revision of the agreed rent under the
    statutory scheme.
  5. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the
    submission of the learned counsel for the appellants
    submits that the High Court has rightly taken the view
    that the landlord was not entitled to enhancement of
    the rent more than 5% in view of the Act, 2001. The
    landlord was not at liberty to claim rent with
    enhancement at the rate of 10% per annum. The High
    Court had rightly held that permitting the landlord to
    demand rent with increase of 10% shall be contrary to
    the Section 6 of the Act, 2001. Any agreement cannot be
    given effect if it provides the revision of rent above
    @ 5%. Learned counsel for the respondents additionally
    submitted that in the event the rate of rent as claimed
    7
    by the landlord is accepted the agreed rent, after the
    receipt of the notice by the tenant, tenant has
    deposited amount of Rs.95,200/­, which covered rent
    upto December, 2003 and part of rent of January, 2004.
    The tenant was not in default for four months, hence he
    could not have been evicted under Section 9 of Act,
  6. He submits that unless there is default for
    payment of 4 months rent eviction cannot be ordered. He
    submits that due to this reason the orders of eviction
    were unsustainable and this Court may not interfere
    with the judgment of the High Court.
  7. We have considered the submissions of the learned
    counsel for the parties and perused the records.
  8. We need to look into the statutory scheme of Act,
    2001 for considering the respective submissions. The
    Rent Control Legislation which was in operation prior
    to Act, 2001 also need to be noted for appreciating the
    changes in law brought by the Act, 2001. The issue in
    these appeals pertains to rate of rent and the revision
    of rent as prescribed by the Act, 2001, hence, only
    8
    those provisions of both the earlier Act and the
    Act,2001 need to be noted. Act, 2001 has repealed the
    Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
  9. We may first notice the provisions of Act, 2001
    which are relevant for the present case. Section 4
    provides for rent to be as agreed which is to the
    following effect:
    “Section 4. Rent to be as agreed. ­ The rent
    payable for any premises shall, subject to
    other provisions of this Act, be such as may
    be agreed upon between the landlord and the
    tenant and it shall not include the charges
    payable for amenities which may he agreed upon
    separately; and shall be payable accordingly.”
  10. Chapter II of the Act, 2001 deals with “Revision of
    Rent”. Section 6 of the Act (as existing on relevant
    day) provides as follows:
    “Section 6. Revision of rent in respect of
    existing tenancies. ­ (1) Notwithstanding
    anything contained in any agreement, where
    the premises have been let out before the
    commencement of this Act, the rent thereof
    shall be liable to be revised according to
    the formula indicated below :­
    (a) where the premises have been let out
    prior to 1st January, 1950, it shall be
    deemed to have been let out on 1st January,
    1950 and the rent payable at that time shall
    be liable to be increased at the rate of
    9
    7.5% per annum and the amount of increase of
    rent shall be merged in such rent alter ten
    years. The amount of rent so arrived at
    shall again be liable to be increased at the
    rate of 7.5% per annum in similar manner
    upto the year of commencement of this Act;
    (b) where the premises have been let out on
    or after 1st January, 1951, the rent payable
    at the time of commencement of the tenancy
    shall be liable to he increased at the rate
    of 7.5% 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 of 7.5% per annum in similar manner
    upto the year of commencement of this Act.
    (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
    Sub­section (1), where the period of ten
    years for merger of increase of rent under
    Sub­section (1), is not completed upto the
    year of the commencement of this Act, the
    rent at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be
    increased upto the year of the commencement
    of this Act and amount of increase of rent
    shall be merged in rent.
    (3) The rent arrived at according to the
    formula given in Sub­section (1) and (2)
    shall, after completion of each year from
    the year of commencement of this Act, again
    be liable to be increased and paid at the
    rate of 5% per annum and the amount of
    increase of rent shall he merged in such
    rent after ten years. Such tent shall
    10
    further be liable to he increased at
    similar rate and merged in similar manner
    till the tenancy subsists.
    (4) The rent revised as per formula given
    under Sub­section (1) or Sub­section (2)
    shall be payable, after the commencement of
    this Act, from the date agreed upon between
    the landlord and the tenant or where any
    petition is filed in a Rent Tribunal, from
    the date of filing of such petition.”
  11. Section 7 deals with revision of rent in respect of
    new tenancies which is to the following effect:
    “Section 7. Revision of rent in respect of new
    tenancies. ­ (1)In the absence of any
    agreement to the contrary, the rent of the
    premises let out alter the commencement of
    this Act 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. Such rent shall further be
    liable to be increased at the similar rate and
    merged in similar manner till the tenancy
    subsists.
    (2) Any agreement for increase of rent in
    excess of 5% per annum shall be void to that
    extent.”
  12. Section 14 provides the procedure for revision of
    rent. Section 14 sub­section (1) is as follows:
    11
    “Section 14. Procedure for revision of rent. ­
    (1) The landlord may seek revision of rent
    under Section 6 or Section 7 by submitting it
    petition before the Rent Tribunal accompanied
    by affidavits and documents, if any.”
  13. Now we notice the relevant provisions as existed in
    Act, 1950. Section 5 dealt with the payment as agreed
    rent to the following effect:
    “Section 5. Rent to be as agreed.­ The rent
    payable for any premises situated within the
    areas to which this Act extends for the time
    being shall, subject to the other provisions
    thereof, be ordinarily such, as may be agreed
    upon between the landlord and the tenant.”
  14. Section 6 dealt with fixation of standard rent.
    Section 6(1) is as follows:
    “Section 6. Fixation of standard rent.­(1)
    Where no rent has been agreed upon or where
    for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed
    to be low or excessive, the landlord or the
    tenant may institute a suit in the lowest
    court or competent jurisdiction for fixation
    of standard rent for any premises.
    (2)………………”
  15. In the Act, 1950, Section 7 provided for fixation
    12
    of provisional rent, which provided that upon the
    institution of a suit under Section 6, the Court shall
    forthwith make an order fixing in a summary manner a
    provisional rent for the premises in question, which
    shall be binding on all parties concerned and shall
    remain in force till a decree fixing the standard rent
    therefor is finally made in such suit.
  16. The important differences between the statutory
    scheme as contained in Section 6 of Act, 1950 and as
    now contained in Act, 2001 are:
    (i) Under the old Act the landlord or the
    tenant both were entitled to file a suit for
    fixation of standard rent, if it is claimed
    that rent is either low or excessive. Thus,
    landlord could have moved the Court for
    enhancement of the rent and equally the tenant
    could have instituted a suit in the event the
    rent was excessive and the Court after holding
    inquiry was to determine the standard rent for
    such premises.
    (ii) In Section 6 of Act, 2001 the tenant has
    not been given any right to apply for revision
    of the rent on any ground. The old Act did not
    13
    contain any prohibition regarding the annual
    increase of rent whereas Section 6 now
    contains the prohibition, restricting annual
    increase only by 5% for both the tenancies
    which were in existence prior to enforcement
    of the Act as well as tenancies which
    commenced after the commencement of the Act,
    2001.
  17. The moot question to be answered is as to whether
    the agreed rent which was being paid by the tenant
    immediately before the commencement of Act, 2001 i.e.
    with effect from 01.04.2003 is liable to be redetermined as per provisions of Section 6 of Act, 2001
    by a tenant and tenant can unilaterally revise the rent
    under new Section 6. Reverting to the facts of the
    present case, it is on the record that tenant was
    paying the rent of Rs.16,564/­ per month immediately
    before the enforcement of the Act and even subsequently
    till the month of July, 2003. In the rent agreement
    there was mutual agreement between the parties for
    annual increase @ 10% and the rent of Rs.16,565/­ per
    month was arrived at complying @ 10% increase annually
    to the tenancy which commenced from 01.08.1995. As per
    14
    tenant the rent which was become payable after the
    enforcement of the Act has to be re­determined applying
    Section 6 and instead of 10% as agreed between the
    parties calculation has to be on the basis of increase
    at the rate of 7.5% w.e.f. 01.08.1995 as per provision
    of Section 6.
  18. A comparison of scheme of Section 6 as it existed
    in Act, 1950 and Section 6 as it brought under Act,
    2001 makes it clear that although the tenant under the
    old Act was entitled to apply for fixation of standard
    rent if the rent was excessive whereas under Section 6
    of the Act, 2001 tenant has not been given any right to
    pray for reduction of the rent. It is true that Section
    6(1) begins with the words “Notwithstanding anything
    contained in any agreement”. Section 6(1) sub­clause
    (b) provides for “where the premises have been let out
    on or after 01.01.1950”, the provision contemplates
    that 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.
    15
  19. Sub­section (4) of Section 6 further provides that
    rent revised as per formula given under sub­section (1)
    and sub­section (2) shall be payable, after the
    commencement of this Act from the date agreed upon
    between the landlord and the tenant or where any
    revision petition is filed, from date of filing of such
    petition.
  20. Section 14 of the Act contains procedure for
    revision of rent which provides that landlord may seek
    revision of rent under Section 6 and 7 by submitting a
    petition before the Rent Tribunal accompanied by
    affidavits and documents, if any. Section 14 subsection (1) uses the words “landlord may seek
    revision”. It is not obligatory for every landlord to
    seek revision of rent in accordance with Section 6.
    Section 6 contains provision entitling landlord to seek
    revision of rent notwithstanding anything contained in
    any agreement between landlord and tenant. Section 6
    empowers the landlord to obtain revision of rent and to
    calculate the rent from date of initiation of tenancy.
    But in the event landlord does not choose to invoke the
    16
    machinery of revision of the rent as provided in
    Section 6 and Section 14, the agreed rent between the
    parties shall not automatically be changed nor the
    tenant can unilaterally revise the rent. Section 6 is
    also beneficial to the tenant to the extent that any
    contrary agreement between the parties to increase the
    rent annually more than as provided under Section 6
    cannot be enforced by a landlord after the enforcement
    of the Act. In the event landlord applies for revision
    of the rent, the revision of rent has to be in
    accordance with the formula as provided under Section
    6(1) and 6(2) of the Act. The statutory scheme does not
    indicate that the tenant can unilaterally compute the
    rent as per formula under Section 6(1) from the
    inception of the tenancy and reduce the amount of rent
    which he was paying immediately before the enforcement
    of the Act. In the present case, the tenant has come up
    with the case in his written statement that he has
    recomputed the rent from inception of tenancy and has
    arrived at calculation that the rent payable with
    effect from the enforcement of Act, 2001 was
    17
    Rs.13,600/­ only and relying on the said computation he
    deposited an amount of Rs.95,200/­ in response to the
    notice. The High Court in its judgment has held that
    after the enforcement of the Act, 2001 no agreement can
    provide for higher revision of rent. The High Court in
    its judgment has made following observation:
    “Section 6 of the Act starts with nonobstantive clause, thus no agreement to
    provide higher or lower rate of revision of
    rent would operate after commencement of the
    Act of 2001.
    The landlord was thus not at liberty to
    claim rent with enhancement @ 10% per annum.”
  21. Ultimately, the High Court held following:
    “The landlord was entitled to the rent as was
    payable on the date of commencement of the
    Act of 2001 without its revision, in facts
    and circumstances of this case. In view of
    above, I find that demand of rent based on
    the agreement was not proper so as to
    consider it to be a case of short remittance
    and default in payment of rent thereof. In
    the background aforesaid, the findings of the
    default in payment of rent, recorded by the
    Rent Tribunal so also by Appellate Rent
    Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand. The
    impugned orders passed by the Rent Tribunal
    so also by Appellate Rent Tribunal are thus,
    quashed. A case of default in payment of rent
    is not made out.”
    18
  22. The observation of the High Court that landlord was
    entitled to the rent as was payable on the date of
    commencement of the Act, 2001 without its revision is
    perfectly correct. The landlord cannot claim revision
    of rent as per agreement at the rate of 10% per annum
    after the enforcement of the Act. The present is not a
    case that the landlord is claiming rent after the
    enforcement of the Act by adding 10% increase in the
    rent. The landlord’s case throughout is that the rent
    at the rate of Rs.16,564/­ per month was being paid by
    the tenant since before the commencement of the Act and
    even after the commencement of the Act, till the month
    of July, 2003 the tenant paid rent at the rate of
    Rs.16,564/­ per month.
  23. Section 4 of the Act which deals with the agreed
    rent provides that rent payable for any premises shall
    subject to the provisions of this Act, be such as may
    be agreed between the landlord and the tenant. When the
    tenant was paying the rent of Rs.16,564/­ per month
    before the enforcement of the Act as per the rent
    19
    agreement, the said amount was agreed amount which was
    being paid before the enforcement of the Act. It is
    true that in the agreed amount which was being paid
    immediately before the commencement of the Act, the
    landlord cannot increase @ 10% of the rent as per
    agreement. The increase after the enforcement of the
    Act shall be in accordance with Section 6 and in the
    event the tenant does not agree for the said increase,
    the landlord is free to file application under Section
    6 read with Section 14. In view of the foregoing
    discussion, we are of the view that the High Court has
    not appreciated the true import of Sections 6 and 7 of
    the Act, 2001 in observing that the tenant is not in
    default.
  24. One more submission which has been pressed by the
    tenant to relieve the tenant from eviction has to be
    considered. Section 9 of the Act provides for eviction
    of the tenant which is to the following effect:
    “Section 9. Eviction of tenants. ­
    Notwithstanding anything contained in any
    other law or contract but subject to other
    provisions of this Act, the Rent Tribunal
    20
    shall not order eviction of tenant unless it
    is satisfied that, ­
    (a) the tenant has neither paid nor tendered
    the amount of rent due from him for four
    months :­
    Provided that the ground under this clause
    shall not be available to the landlord if he
    has not disclosed to the tenant his hank
    account number and name of the bank in the
    same Municipal area, in the rent agreement or
    by a notice sent to him by registered post,
    acknowledgment due :
    Provided further that no petition on the
    ground under this clause shall he filed unless
    the landlord has given it notice to the tenant
    by registered post, acknowledgment due,
    demanding arrears of rent and the tenant has
    not made payment of arrears of rent within a
    period of thirty days from the (late of
    service of notice.
    Explanation.­ For the purposes of this clause,
    the rent shall be deemed to have been tendered
    when the same is remitted through money order
    to the landlord by properly addressing the
    same;or having been deposited with the Rent
    Authority;or”
  25. Section 9(a) provides that eviction can be ordered
    only when the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the
    rent due from him for four months. He submits that
    admittedly after the receipt of the notice dated
    27.03.2004 demanding arrears of rent of Rs.1,15,945/­,
    21
    the tenant has paid an amount of Rs.95,200/­ which
    covered the payment of rent upto December, 2003 and
    part of rent of January, 2004. He submits that notice
    was issued demanding arrears of rent from August, 2003
    to 29.02.2004 and the rent upto December, 2003 having
    been deposited there was no default for four month
    entitling the landlord to claim eviction.
  26. Section 9 second proviso of Act, 2001 contemplates
    a notice by landlord demanding arrears of rent and the
    tenant has not made payment of rent within 30 days from
    the service of the notice. The words “arrears of rent”
    mean the arrears as demanded by notice and the ground
    for eviction as contemplated under Section 9(a) is “the
    tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent
    due from him for four months”. The payment and
    tendering of rent thus relates to rent for four months.
    The tenant cannot be heard saying that since although
    his payment was done complying the arrears of rent as
    demanded but since he has made the payment upto
    December, 2003 and the part of January, 2004, he should
    be relieved from eviction. What Section 9 contemplates
    22
    is payment or tendering the amount of rent due from him
    for four months, thus, tendering of payment of rent is
    rent due from him for four months. In the event rent
    due from him for four months is not paid the ground as
    contemplated under Section 9(a) is made out. We in this
    context notice a judgment of this Court in Prakash
    Mehra vs. K.L.Malhotra, (1989) 3 SCC 74. In the above
    case this Court has occasion to consider the provision
    of Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The
    arrears demanded by the notice were the arrears which
    were required to be paid by the tenant. The High Court
    has held that Section 14(1)(a) of the Act made out a
    ground for eviction only where the tenant had neither
    paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent
    legally recoverable from him within two months of the
    date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of
    rent was served on him by the landlord. In the above
    case the contention of the landlord was that the rent
    which was due after the notice should also be treated
    to be as defaulted rent which argument was not
    accepted. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following was
    23
    laid down:
    “7. It is urged before us by learned Counsel
    for the appellant that Section 14(1)(a) of the
    Act contemplates the payment or tender of the
    whole of the arrears of rent legally
    recoverable from the tenant on the date when
    the demand notice is sent including the rent
    which has accrued after service of the demand
    notice. When the notice was sent on 7 May
    1976, rent for the months of April and May
    1976 lad become due, and as two months was
    given for payment of the arrears, it would
    include also the rent which had accrued during
    the said period of two months. We are not
    satisfied that there is substance in the
    contention. The arrears of rent envisaged by
    Section 14(1)(a) of the Act are the arrears
    demanded by the notice for payment of arrears
    of rent. The arrears due cannot be extended to
    rent which has fallen due after service of the
    notice of demand. In this case, the two bank
    drafts representing the arrears of rent
    covered by the notice of demand had been
    tendered within two months of the date of
    service of the notice of demand. The High
    Court is right in the view taken by it. We are
    not satisfied that the construction placed by
    B. C. Misra, J. in Jag Ram Nathu Ram v.
    Surinder Kumar [S.A.O. No. 52 of 1975 decided
    on 28 April, 1976 (Del)] and in S.L Kapur v.
    Dr. Mrs. P. D. Lal, [1975 Ren C.J. 322 (Del)]
    lays down the correct law on the point. ”
  27. This Court in the above case has held that arrears
    of rent as envisaged in provision of Section 14(1)(a)
    24
    of the Delhi Rent Control Act are the arrears demanded
    by the notice for payment of arrears of rent. In the
    present case arrears demanded by the notice i.e.
    Rs.16,564/­ per month starting from December, 2003 to
    February, 2004 totalling Rs.1,15,945/­ were required to
    be paid by the tenant, the tenant having paid only
    Rs.95,200/­ as per his calculation of the rent at the
    rate of Rs.13,600/­ per month has committed default.
    According to the learned counsel for the tenant, the
    rent paid by the tenant was sufficient to cover the
    rent upto December, 2003 and part of January, 2004,
    admittedly, the arrears as demanded having not been
    paid and we having found that the landlord has demanded
    arrears of rent for seven months according to rate of
    rent Rs.16,564/­ per month which was being paid by the
    tenant even before the enforcement of the Act, 2001 and
    after the enforcement of the Act, 2001. The landlord
    having not added 10% increase in the rent demanded,
    there was no breach of Section 6 and the High Court has
    committed error in allowing the writ petition of the
    tenant.
    25
  28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow the
    appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the High
    Court and restore the order of the Rent Tribunal.
    ………………….J.
    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
    ………………….J.
    ( K.M. JOSEPH )
    New Delhi,
    January 29, 2019.