Ambabari, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Non v. Suwa Lal Son of

3. Smt. Savitri Natani wife of late Shri Damodar Natani, aged about 64 years,

4. Ashok Kumar son of late Shri Damodar Natani, aged about 46 years, All residents of E-147, Ambabari, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Non-Applicants/Petitioners Versus Suwa Lal Son of Shri Chokha Ram, resident of Plot No.7-A, Vivekanand Colony, Naya Khera, Ambabari, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Applicant/Non-Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampati Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 25/02/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned Rent Tribunal”) in Execution Application No.12/2011 whereby, an application filed by the petitioners under sections [2025:RJ-JP:8573] (2 of 5) [CW-14587/2014] 151, 152 & 153 CPC seeking correction of a clerical error in the judgment dated 25.05.2009, has been rejected. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) filed an application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) against the petitioners. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide its final order dated 23.04.2007, decided the prayer of the applicant qua Section 6 of the Act of 2001 only and revised the rent to ₹385/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2003 with 5% increase per year payable from the date of application, i.e.,

08.08.2006. Thereafter, vide final order dated 25.05.2009, the learned Rent Tribunal, while deciding the application filed by the applicant, directed eviction of the petitioners and also issued direction for payment of rent @ ₹950/- per month w.e.f.

22.08.2006. An appeal as also a writ petition preferred thereagainst by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal and by this Court vide orders dated 18.03.2010 and 20.05.2010 respectively. However, this Court granted the petitioners time upto 30.06.2011 to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the rented premise to the applicant; pursuant whereof, possession of the tenanted premise was handed over to the applicant on 04.10.2010 resulting into dismissal of the execution application filed by him as infructuous. Thereafter, the applicant filed second execution application claiming arrears of rent @ Rs.950/- per month. Therein, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC seeking correction in the final order dated 25.05.2009 as to [2025:RJ-JP:8573] (3 of 5) [CW-14587/2014] the rate of monthly rent which has been dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned dated 05.11.2014. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the prayer made by the applicant in the application under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 vide its final order dated 23.04.2007, the learned Rent Tribunal revised the rent to ₹385/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2003 with 5% increase per year payable from 08.08.2006 which comes to ₹444/- per month on the date of payment, i.e., 08.08.2006. However, while deciding the application qua Section 9 vide its final order dated 25.05.2009, the learned Rent Tribunal directed for payment of rent @ 950/- per month w.e.f. 22.08.2006 on account of a bonafide clerical error. He submits that neither before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal nor, before this Court, the payment of rent @ ₹950/- was assailed either on merit or, being on account of clerical error as it escaped their notice and only after filing of the second execution application by the applicant, they came to know of it. Learned counsel submits that since, the direction issued by the learned Rent Tribunal for payment of rent @ ₹950/- per month w.e.f.

22.08.2006 is on account of a bonafide clerical error, the final order required corresponding rectification. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 05.11.2014 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by them be allowed. None for the applicant despite service. Heard. Considered. The applicant has filed an application under Section 6 as well as under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the petitioners. Vide [2025:RJ-JP:8573] (4 of 5) [CW-14587/2014] its final order dated 23.04.2007, prayer of the applicant qua Section 6 of the Act of 2001 only was allowed in terms that the rent was revised to ₹385/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2003 with 5% increase per year and it was made payable w.e.f. 08.08.2006, i.e., the date of filing of the application. With 5% increase per year in the revised rent @ ₹385/- per month, the rent payable on

08.08.2006 came to ₹444/- per month. However, while deciding the application qua Section 9 of the Act of 2001 vide its final order dated 25.05.2009, despite recording a categorical finding that the issue No.2 pertaining to revision of rent was not pressed by the applicant, in addition to issuing direction for eviction of the petitioners, a further direction was issued to pay the rent @ ₹950/- per month w.e.f. 22.08.2006. The applicant has rightly not pressed the issue No.2 as it was already decided by the Rent Tribunal vide final order dated 23.04.2007. There is nothing in the final order dated 25.05.2009 to indicate as to how a direction came to be issued for payment of the monthly rent @ ₹950/- in the teeth of assessment of revised rent @ ₹385/- per month w.e.f.

01.04.2003 with 5% increase per year. Although, this Court does not have before it either the memo of appeal or the memo of the writ petition filed by the petitioners; however, the orders dated

18.03.2010 and 20.05.2010 passed therein respectively, do not reflect that the matter was examined either by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal or by this Court qua the fixation of revised rent/direction for payment of monthly rent @ ₹950/-. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its final order dated 25.05.2009 with regard to payment of [2025:RJ-JP:8573] (5 of 5) [CW-14587/2014] monthly rent @ ₹950/- w.e.f. 22.08.2006 was on account of a bonafide clerical error and the petitioners were liable to pay rent @ ₹385/- per month with 5% increase per year payable from

08.08.2006 as directed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its final order dated 23.04.2007 while deciding the application under Section 6 of the Act of 2001. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is allowed. The order dated

05.11.2014 is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioners stands allowed in terms as stated hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Manish/36 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J