P.B. Majmudar, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these appeals are already admitted and at the time of considering the question regarding confirmation of interim relief, we have requested the learned counsel to address us on merits of this appeal and the learned counsel appearing for both the sides have argued the matter finally and therefore, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment finally.

3. All the appeals are directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2278/2003, 2280/2003 and 2279/2003 respectively.

4. The learned Single Judge decided the aforesaid writ petitions by common order dt. 07.11.2006. The learned counsel Mr. Shishodia submitted that against the common order dt. 07.11.2006 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1067/2005, the appeal has been filed, but the same has yet not been admitted and the matter is lying in defect.

5. The controversy involved in this group of petitions is in connection with the notification issued by the State Government dt. 05.10.1996 which is published in gazette on 15.10.1996, by which the premises occupied by the appellants as tenants has been exempted from the operation of Rent Act. It is aforesaid notification of exemption, which is challenged by the present appellants by way of filing aforesaid writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The present appellants are tenants of premises belonging to the Pooran Dasji Ki Bagichi Trust (hereianfter referred to as the Trust). The Trust has filed various eviction suits against each of the present appellants. So far as appellant Madan Lal is concerned, the eviction suit is numbered as 216/1996. So far as appellant Ram Lal is concerned, the eviction suit is numbered as 195/1997 and so far as appellant Devi Lal is concerned, the eviction suit is numbered as 205/1997.

6. It is pointed out that the Trust has filed the aforesaid suits for getting the decree for possession as the Trust wanted to have the said premises back from the tenants in order to expand the trust activities and for bonafide use and occupation. The aforesaid suits have been filed as regular suits for recovery of possession after terminating the tenancy as required by the Transfer of Property Act. Even though the said suits are pending since long, after considerable time, the aforesaid writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge by the respective defendants (tenants).

7. The controversy involved in the present appeals is whether the State Government was justified in granting benefit of exemption by which the premises in question is exempted from the operation of the Rent Act.

8. As stated earlier, the notification of exemption was issued on 05.10.1996 which was gazetted on 15.10.1996. As per the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, certain premises are permitted to be exempted from the operation of the Act. As per the provisions of Section 2(3) of the Act, the State Government if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest may, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any premises owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution the whole of the income derived from which is utilized for the purpose of the institution.

9. The respondent–Landlord Trust, after getting exemption in view of the notification as referred to above has instituted the aforesaid suits for getting the decree for eviction. In all the aforesaid suits, the appellants–tenants have appeared and have filed written statement. The evidence of the parties is already recorded and the Court is informed that the matter are fixed for final arguments.

10. By filing the aforesaid writ petitions, the respective appellants contended that the notification issued by the State Government is not in public interest and that the Government issued the notification without holding proper enqu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document