1980 Supreme(Raj) 166

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Mahendra Bhushan, J.
Panchayat Shri Digambar Jain Mandir Parshwanathji - Appellant
Versus
Shri Vishnu Prasad - Respondents
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 40 of 1969
Decided On : December 23, 1980

Headnote:(a) Rent Control—Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act—Sec. 13—In suits for eviction on any of the grounds under Sec. 13, notice to determine tenancy is not necessary.(b) Transfer of Property Act—Sec. 106—In suits for eviction on any of the grounds under Sec. 13(i) of the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, notice to determine the tenancy is not necessary.(c) Will—Construction under will—Income of the property is to be spent over the worship of temple. Held, in the circumstances, that the corpus (property) is also given and dedication in favour of temple is absolute.(d) Rent Control Rent Control Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act-Sec. 3(iii)—Landlord—Receipt of rent or right to receive rent is important factor to make the person landlord under the Act. Element of ownership is not necessary characteristic.

       Their Lordships also considered Sambhu for eviction on any of the grounds under Ram vs. Mangal Singh (2) wherein this s. 13(1) of the Act, to my mind, it is not court had taken a view that a notice under necessary to determine the tenancy by sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act giving a notice under sec. 106(i) the Trans-was necessary. Therefore, to my mind, fer of Property Act. I will like to add the observations of their lordships of the that even if valid notice under sec. 106 of Supreme Court in Chettiars case (supra), the Transfer of Property Act is given, the extracted above, leave no manner of doubt suit still cannot be decreed unless a ground that their lordships intended to lay down for eviction is set out under the various the law also so far as the eviction cases clauses of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 of the Act under the Act are concerned, and in suits in made out. (Para 9)

       The right to recover rent, which vested in Prabhulal and to apply it over the worship of the Mandir and the other temple at Govindgarh was given to the Panchayat Digambar Jain (Plaintiff-appellant). Under sec. 3(iii) of the Act, landlord means any person, who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant. Thus, according to the definition of the landlord, as given in sec. 3(iii) of the Act, the element of ownership of the premises is not the main characteristic of a landlord, but it is the receipt of rent or a right to receive the rent by a person, it is the important factor. Lalita Prasad, the original tenant, who is now represented by the respondents, who are the legal representatives, was a tenant of Kishanlal. After the death of Kishanlal, his adopted son Prabhulal received the rent of the disputed premise from Lalita Prasad, as under the Will the (Ex.l3) also he had been given a right to recover rent and utilise the same over the worship of the Mandir and the other temple at Govindgarh, and also over the maintenance of the property described in para 3 of the planit. Prabhulal gave the right to recover rent to Panchayat Digambar Jain, and as such Panchayat Digambar Jain had a right to recover rent from Lalita Prasad, the original tenant, and his legal representatives. Therefore, the Panchayat Digambar Jain is a landlord within the meaning of s. 3(iii) of the Act. Even if the Panchayat Digambar Jain may be said to be recovering rent on behalf of the Mandir it will still be landlord within the meaning of sec. 3(iii) of the Act, so far as the premises in dispute are concerned. The use of the words "any person" in sec. 3(iii) of the Act will make it clear that it is not only the owner of the building but any person who received or has a right to receive the rent,, who is landlord for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the suit for eviction by Panchayat Digambar Jain to my mind is maintainable. (Para 13)