Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 61
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
National Textiles Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Singhal & Ors. (Bhansali, J.)
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, J.
National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
Versus
Pankaj Singhal & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.972 of 2016, decided on 29.03.2016
Muktesh Maheshwari, for Petitioner;
R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Narendra Thanvi, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Sec. 3(x), 18; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec. 111(a) and 106 read with Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964, Sec. 2(b) — Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal — Premises given on rent to a Public Sector undertaking — Lease in favour of tenant executed for a period of three years — On end of lease period notice given to tenant for handing over vacant possession — Defence of Public Premises — Scope — Held — Any premises, which are not taken on lease by or on behalf of the State Government, for the said premises to fall within the definition of public premises, it is necessary that it must `belong' to the Authority/Corporation etc — Premises does not belong to the petitioner, cannot seek exclusion under second proviso to Sec. 18 of the Act — Tribunal can entertain the petition. (Paras 16 to 18)
Petition dismissed.
jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001] /kkjk 3¼10½] 18 ( lEifr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882] /kkjk 111¼d½ vkSj 106 lifBr jktLFkku yksd ifjlj ¼vuf/kd`r vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1964] /kkjk 2¼[k½ & fdjk;k vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkfjrk & lkoZtfud {ks= ds miØe dks ifjlj fdjk;s ij fn;k x;k & fdjk;snkj ds i{k esa yht rhu o"kZ dh vof/k gsrq fu"ikfnr dh xbZ & yht vof/k dh lekfIr ij [kkyh dCtk lqiqnZ djus gsrq fdjk;snkj dks uksfVl fn;k x;k & yksd ifjlj dh izfrj{kk & O;kfIr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & dksbZ Hkh ifjlj] tks yksd ifjlj dh ifjHkk"kk ds rgr vkrk gS] mls jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;k jkT; ljdkj dh rjQ ls yht ij ugha fy;k tkrk gS rks ;g vko';d gS fd og ml izkf/kdkjh@fuxe bR;kfn dh gksuh pkfg;s & ifjlj izkFkhZx.k dk ugha gS] vr% vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18 ds f}rh; ijUrqd ds rgr viotZu dh izkFkZuk ugha dj ldrkA ¼in la[; 16 ls 18½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
Hon'ble BHANSALI, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the judgment dated 4.3.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur and judgment dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the petition for eviction filed by the respondent No.1 – landlord has been accepted and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected respectively.
2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner inter-alia indicating that the provisions of Chapter-II & III of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') are not applicable to the premises as the tenant is a Public Sector undertaking and is covered under Section 3(x) of the Act; the lease in favour of the tenant was last executed for a period of three years and the same has come to an end on 9.10.2012 by efflux of time under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('TP Act').; a notice was issued to the tenant indicating the fact of lease having come to an end and for handing over of vacant possession of the premises which was not done and therefore, the petition was being filed seeking eviction / possession.
3. The petitioner filed reply to the petition for eviction and resisted the same. The landlord filed replication and reiterated the submissions.
4. Alongwith the petition for eviction, affidavits were filed. The petitioner filed application seeking cross-examination of the deponents, who had filed affidavits in support of petition for eviction. The Rent Tribunal by its order dated 25.10.2013 rejected the application and after hearing the parties, by its judgment dated 4.3.2014, ordered for eviction.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The Appellate Rent Tribunal by its judgment dated 28.10.2015 upheld the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Tribunals committed error in accepting the application / rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent / petitioner. It was submitted that as the premises in question are governed by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('Central PP Act'), the petition was not maintainable before the Rent Tribunal in terms of provisions of second proviso to Section 18 of the Act; the notice under Section 106 of the TP Act was not legal, inasmuch as the same was issued even before the lease period had come to an end and that the Rent Tribunal was not justified in refusing the permission seeking cross-examination and therefore, the judgments impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises in question are public premises in terms of definition as indicated in Section 2(e)(2)(i) of the Central PP Act and even if, the period of lease had come to an end, the premises continued to be public premises. Second proviso to Section 18 of the Act excludes the dispute between the landlord and tenant to which provisions of the Central PP Act applies and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the petition for eviction.
8. It was submitted that the lease in question was to expire on 9.10.2012, however, the notice under Section 106 of the TP Act was issued on 15.9.2012 and therefore, the same was not valid. It was further emphasised that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application seeking cross-examination of the deponents of affidavits in support of petition for eviction, which has led to gross injustice of the petitioner and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Reliance was placed on S.R.B. Gaikwad vs. The Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1977 Bombay 220.
10. Vehemently opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same deserves to be dismissed. It was inter-alia submitted that provisions of the Central
