The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the defendant-UIT's status as 'Government' under Section 6(2)(b) of the Act of 1963, and the requirement for specific pleadings regarding non-maintainability of the suit.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is directed against judgment & decree dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Bikaner, whereby the suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act of 1963') has been dismissed as not maintainable.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, with the submissions that shop No. 4 situated at Indra Market, opposite PBM Hospital, Bikaner belongs to the defendant-Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner ('UIT'). The same was let out to the plaintiff on 01.04.1980 with monthly rent @ Rs. 220/- as the plaintiff was the highest bidder. Lease-deed was executed on 08.08.1980, which was duly registered. The rent later on was revised, the electricity connection in the shop is in the name of the plaintiff, which was later on disconnected. It was alleged that since 19.04.1997, the defendant illegally started dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop, the plaintiff raised oral objections that he can only be dispossessed after taking due process of law, whereon, proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, which were not decided. Again in March, 2007 illegal proceedings were initiated for dispossessing the plaintiff, however, they could not dispossess the plaintiff till February, 2016, however, on 09.03.2016, suddenly the defendant trespassed over the shop and placed their lock. It is claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the shop alongwith mesne profit. Notice under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ('the UI Act') was given, however, despite notice, the possession has not been handed over. Based on the above submissions, relief was claimed seeking possession of the shop, mesne profit and costs of the litigation.

3. Despite repeated opportunities, as the defendant did not file its written statement, the same was closed by the trial court on 02.06.2018.

4. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and produced 33 documents. The trial court framed three points for determination including whether the Court had jurisdiction in the matter.

5. The trial court after noticing the contentions of the parties on the points for determination observed that point for determination No. 3 being legal was being decided first.

6. Thereafter provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1963 were quoted and without any further discussion whatsoever, concluded as under:-

11& mi;qZDr fof/kd fLFkfr ds laca/k esa i=koyh dk voyksdu djs] rks gLrxr~ okn esa  Áfroknh uxj fodkl U;kl ds fo:) ;g vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS fd oknxzLr nqdku ua- 4 ftldk o.kZu okni= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa gS] mDr nqdku ua- 4 ls Áfroknh dks csn[ky fd;k tkdj okfil okLrfod dCtk oknh dks Áfroknh ls fnyk;k tkos o dCtk u nsus ij U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls nqdku dk rkyk rksM+dj oknh dks nqdku dk okLrfod dCtk tfj;s U;k;ky; fnyk;k tkos rFkk oknxzLr nqdku ua- 4 dk okLrfod dCtk ikus rd nk;jh nkos ls 100 :i;k ekgokj nj ls e/;orhZ ykHk oknh dks Áfroknh ls fnyk;k tkosA

12& oknh }kjk ÁLrqr okn /kkjk 6¼2½¼[k½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj oknh }kjk ÁLrqr okn mDr /kkjk ds v/khu fof/k }kjk oftZr gksus ds vk/kkj ij ukeatwj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA

7. Based on its above finding that the suit was barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Act of 1963, the suit was dismissed.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court fell in error in dismissing the suit, no written statement was filed, no objection was on record regarding non- maintainability of the suit on the purported ground that the defendant-UIT is 'Government' and as such, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit.

9. Submissions were made that the trial court failed to even indicate that the defendant-UIT was 'Government' and by merely quoting the provision, has jumped on to the conclusion that the suit was barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Act of 1963 and as such, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set