Back
2014 Supreme(Raj) 568
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
AMITAVA ROY and VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Ayal Das & others – Appellant
vs
State of Rajasthan & others – Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 22 of 2007
Decided On : 11/02/2014
The State Government must apply its mind and consider the relevant factors before granting exemption from the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - EXEMPTION FROM ACT - CONDITIONS - APPLICATION OF MIND BY STATE GOVERNMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - FACTUAL INQUIRY - BURDEN OF PROOF - DELAY IN CHALLENGING NOTIFICATION - FALSE STATEMENT - MALA FIDE - SUBSEQUENT EXEMPTION UNDER NEW ACT - RELEVANCE - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 2(3).
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, tenants in premises owned by respondent-trust, challenged a notification issued by the State Government exempting the trust from the application of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act of 1950). The trust had filed eviction suits against the appellants, relying on the exemption notification. The appellants argued that the State Government did not apply its mind before issuing the notification and that the trust did not fulfill the conditions for exemption.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government had sought various informations from the trust before issuing the exemption notification and that the trust had furnished all the required information. The court also noted that the appellants had not alleged any mala fide in the action of the State Government and that they had made a false statement in the writ petition regarding the date when they came to know about the notification. The court further observed that the State Government had subsequently granted exemption to the trust from the application of Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which indicated that the conditions for exemption were satisfied.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government applied its mind before issuing the exemption notification? 2. Whether the trust fulfilled the conditions for exemption? 3. Whether the appellants' delay in challenging the notification and their false statement affected the outcome of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the State Government had applied its mind before issuing the exemption notification, as it had sought various informations from the trust and had considered the trust's application in detail. 2. The court found that the trust had fulfilled the conditions for exemption, as it had submitted all the required information to the State Government and had demonstrated that its income was utilized for public and charitable purposes. 3. The court held that the appellants' delay in challenging the notification and their false statement regarding the date when they came to know about the notification did not affect the outcome of the case, as they had not alleged any mala fide in the action of the State Government and had not provided any evidence to support their claim that the State Government had not applied its mind before issuing the notification.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the exemption notification issued by the State Government.
BISHNOI, J. :
” Since all these appeals are directed against the common order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in the batch of writ petitions preferred by the appellants challenging the notification issued by the State Government dated 03.08.1996 (published on 28.08.1996), while exercising the powers under sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short ' the Act of 1950 ” hereinafter), whereby the State Government has granted exemption to the respondent-trust from the application of the provisions of the Act of 1950, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are tenants in the premises owned by the respondent-trust. In the year 2003, the respondent-trust had filed eviction suits against the appellants on various ground including personal necessity, nuisance and default etc. in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara. In the plaint, the respondent-trust has mentioned that the State Government, vide notification dated 03.08.1996, has exempted it from the applicability of all the provisions of the Act of 1950 and as such, the respondent-trust is not bound to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1950. The said notification dated 03.08.1996 was subject to challenge by the appellants by way of writ petitions and those writ petitions were decided by the learned single Judge by common order dated 07.11.2006, which is under challenge in these appeals. The main ground, on which the notification was challenged by the appellants in the writ petitions, was that the State Government, before issuing the impugned notification, did not apply its mind to the question whether the conditions for granting exemption to the premises owned by the respondent-trust were fulfilled and the trust is entitled to exemption.
3. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the pleadings and documents, has observed as under:
' I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, have given my thoughtful consideration and have perused the pleadings and the documents. From the documents placed on record by the respondent-Trust, it appears that the State Government sought various information from the respondent-Trust before issuing the exemption notification and after taking into consideration the information supplied by the respondent-Trust with regard to utilization of the income arising from the properties of the trust for public and charitable purpose, that the exemption notification under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Act of 1950 was issued by the State Government. The contention of the petitioner therefore, that the exemption notification has been issued without due application of mind, is wholly misconceived. On the contrary, the documents placed on record by the respondent-Trust clearly establish that the State Government before issuing the impugned notification made a thorough inquiry from the respondent-Trust and after satisfying itself about the fact that the income arising from the premises owned by the respondent Trust is being used for the public and charitable purpose, that the notification has been issued. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Shah Theaters (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case, whereas, the judgment relied upon by the respondent squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed.'
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the order dated 07.11.2006 and argued that the learned single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that before issuance of the notification dated 03.08.1996, the State Government has not recorded its satisfaction, firstly that the income of
