Honble RATHORE, J.–This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur and declare that the provisions of Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply to the present case.

(2). The main question involved in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner federation is covered by the provisions of Section 3 Sub section (x) of the Rent Control Act, 2001. In respect of the premises, which were let to a public sector undertaking in which the capital of the State Government was to the extent of 95% and the said Undertaking was being administered by the Officers of the State Government and therefore Chapters II and III of the Rent Control Act were not applicable in the present case.

(3). This main issue is highlighted by the petitioner in the entire writ petition with the support of the Provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court.

(4). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed the Original Application No. 302 of 2003 before the Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur. In the application the respondents claimed the relief of eviction of the petitioner federation from the premises on the ground that the tenancy of the petitioner federation had been terminated by notices served on the petitioner federation dated 31.7.2003 and 29.8.2003 as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Rent Control Act.

(5). The reply to the application has been filed by the petitioner federation and it was denied on its part that Chapters II and III were not applicable to the premises in question as the tenant happened to be a Public Sector undertaking as per the provisions of Section 3 (x). The provisions of Section 3 (x) are not applicable to the petitioner federation and the petitioner federation is only a cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act and the entire administration is vested in the Board of Directors.

(6). The Rent Tribunal, Jaipur framed the issue, which reads as under: ........

(7). The Tribunal after hearing the matter and after considering the judgment reported in AIR 1985 SC 973 (supra), came to the conclusion that petitioner is a Corporation covered under Section 3 (x) of the Act of 2001. Thus, Chapter-II and III of the Act are not applicable.

(8). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding given by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions and scheme of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

(9). Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Garg has referred Rule 3 sub rule (x), which reads as under:

``To any premises let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or multinational companies, and private limited companies or public limited companies having a paid up share capital or rupees one crore or more.

(10). By referring sub Rule (x) of Rule 3 the petitioner submits that by reading of the provisions reveals that the premises would be exempt from the provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act only when the premises have been let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or multinational companies and private limited companies or public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more.

(11). By referring this provision Mr. Garg submits that the present premises would not be covered by sub clause a, c & d and it is not mentioned by the respondents that petitioner federation is either a bank or multinational companies or private limited companies and paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more. However, it is admitted that it is a corporation as it was registered under Rajasthan Cooperative Act but the same time Mr. Garg submits that this Corporation is not established by or under any Central or State Act, therefore, the provisions of Section 3 sub-section 10 are not applicable to the instant case.

(12)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document