GOVIND MATHUR, J.

1. To examine correctness of the judgment dated 24.9.2015, passed by learned Single Bench, this appeal is before us.

2. The facts relevant are that in the year 1969, one Shri Bahadur Singh Kothari rented out a premises to Shri Sukhlal, father of the appellant-petitioners. The landlord had temporary possession of a part of the rented premises being required for some marriage in family. The possession of the premises aforesaid, however, was not handed over to the tenant, therefore, a suit for recovery of possession was preferred which came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff tenant on 22.8.1994. An appeal preferred by the landlord also came to be dismissed under the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1996. The possession of the premises in question was handed over to the plaintiff tenant as a consequence to the execution of decree after dismissal of the second appeal vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1996. Suffice to mention that during pendency of litigation the rented premises was purchased by Jain Shwetambar Oswal Samaj (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samaj'). The Samaj preferred a suit for eviction of the tenant from the rented premises on the ground of bona-fide necessity, default in payment of rent and availability of alternative accommodation to tenant. The suit came to be decreed by the trial court under the judgment dated 2.5.1998. The tenant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.5.1998 preferred an appeal before the court of learned District Judge, Banswara.

3. During pendency of the appeal, Shri Godi Parshwanath Shwetambar Jain Mandir Bawan Deri Trust, Banswara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') claiming itself to be owner of property, terminated the tenancy of the tenant petitioners invoking provisions of Section 106/111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was also disclosed in the notice dated 5.3.1999 that the State of Rajasthan by invoking powers under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') exempted the Trust from applicability of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The tenant petitioners responded the notice with several objections, but ultimately preferred a petition for writ giving challenge to the notification of the State of Rajasthan dated 12.11.1998. The case of the petitioners before learned Single Bench was that the State Government while invoking powers under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 did not apply its mind and as such the same is bad.

4. No reply to the writ petition was filed by the State Government, however, the notification was defended by the State and respondent Shri Godi Parshwanath Shwetambar Jain Mandir Bawan Deri Trust with assertion that as per sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950, it is permissible to grant exemption in respect of any premises owned by educational, religious or charitable institution, if whole of the income derived is utilised for the purpose of the institution and in the instant matter the respondent No. 3 is a religious Trust utilising complete income for religious purposes, hence, the notification dated 12.11.1998 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

5. Learned Single Bench, after considering the arguments advanced, dismissed the writ petition by arriving at the conclusion that the Trust availing exemption is a religious Trust, utilising whole of the income derived from the premises for the purpose of institution itself, hence was entitled to get the exemption and no need was there to disclose any further facts except referred in the notification dated 12.11.1998 itself.

6. Aggrieved by the conclusion arrived, the instant appeal is preferred with contention that to invoke powers under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950, the State Government must satisfy itself that exemption from the provisions of the Act of 1950 is necessary or expedient in public interest, but