The Rajasthan High Court has issued notices to the state government and other respondents on a petition challenging certain provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The case raises questions about delays in resolving disputes between landlords and tenants and the functioning of authorities responsible for deciding rent-related matters.
The petition was filed by Vipin Singh, a tenant of a shop in Jaipur. A division bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja issued notices to the respondents, which include the State of Rajasthan through the sub-divisional magistrate, the Rent Authority in Jaipur, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and the landlord, Pritam Sharma.
Singh has challenged Sections 22-A and 23(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. According to the petition, the existing arrangement for handling disputes under the Act has resulted in delays, affecting tenants seeking relief in matters related to rented premises.
The dispute before the court relates to the electricity supply to the petitioner’s shop. The petitioner has stated that the landlord disconnected the electricity connection in October 2025 without prior notice. Following the disconnection, Singh approached the Rent Authority, Jaipur, seeking restoration of the electricity supply.
However, the application for restoration has remained pending since October 2025, according to the petitioner’s counsel. The prolonged pendency of the matter forms an important part of the challenge, with the petitioner arguing that delays in the existing mechanism can leave tenants without timely relief when essential amenities are withdrawn.
The petition has also questioned the state government’s decision to empower officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, not below the rank of sub-divisional officers, to function as Rent Authorities. The petitioner argued that sub-divisional officers already carry administrative responsibilities and may not have sufficient time to conduct and decide rent-related proceedings within a reasonable period.
The challenge therefore goes beyond the individual dispute over the electricity connection. It also focuses on the effectiveness of the institutional mechanism established for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants. The outcome of the case could have implications for how Rent Authorities function and the speed at which tenants and landlords are able to obtain decisions.
Another issue raised before the High Court concerns Section 23 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act. The provision prohibits landlords from discontinuing or withholding amenities that are available to tenants. The petitioner has argued that electricity is an essential amenity and that denial of such a facility affects the tenant’s right to carry out normal activities.
The petition further states that the denial of electricity violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking restoration of the electricity connection to the rented shop while also challenging the provisions and administrative arrangement that govern the handling of such disputes.
The case brings attention to a common issue in tenancy disputes: the need for a mechanism that can provide timely relief when a tenant alleges that an essential amenity has been discontinued. Delays can have practical consequences, particularly when the dispute involves commercial premises where the absence of electricity may affect day-to-day business operations.
By issuing notices, the Rajasthan High Court has initiated the process of hearing the responses of the state government and other parties named in the petition. The matter will examine both the tenant’s individual grievance and the broader questions raised regarding the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
The case is expected to provide further clarity on the functioning of Rent Authorities and the safeguards available to tenants when essential amenities are withheld or discontinued.
Image- ecommitteesci.gov.in
