Honble MAHESHWARI, J.–The petitioner Rajasthan Mahila Parishad, Udaipur, said to be a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and a public trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 and a recognised educational institution under the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 receiving 90% government aid, opposed an application made by its landlords under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (the Act / the Act of 2001) for revision of rent in relation to the premises let to it, essentially on the ground that it being a registered society, a registered public trust, and a government aided institution, the provisions contained in Chapters II and III of the Act do not apply for the exclusion provided in clauses (viii) and (iv) of its Section 3. The petitioner-tenant also contended that the rent was fixed as per the assessment made by the Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan; and that the State of Rajasthan was a necessary party in whose absence, the matter could not be proceeded with.

(2). The learned Rent Tribunal by its order dated 09.02.2004 (Annex.10) considered and rejected the basic submission of the petitioner about exclusion of Chapters II and III of the Act with reference to clauses (viii) and (iv) of Section 3 of the Act with the finding that the premises in question belong to the private persons and the provisions referred by the petitioner apply in relation to the premises belonging to or of the ownership of certain trusts or bodies; and the petitioner being only a tenant, exclusion clauses do not apply.

(3). Thereafter, by its order dated 29.07.2004 (Annex.12) the Tribunal proceeded to revise the rent taking the basic rent at Rs.800/- per month as on 15.07.1982 and determined the same as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act at Rs.2]634/- per month as on 15.07.2003 and directed payment of revised rent from the date of filing of the application i.e., 18.08.2003.

(4). Taking an appeal, the petitioner contended before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur that it being 90% aided institution, for all practical purposes the enhanced rate shall be payable by the State Government; and that as per Section 3 of the Act, the petitioner being an educational institution, the provisions of Chapters II and III are not applicable to it. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has observed that the solitary question was as to whether or not the exclusion provisions are applicable where the individuals rented out the premises to such educational institutions. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has referred to the relevant clauses of Section 3 of the Act and has rejected the contention of the petitioner with the observation that various clauses of Section 3 use different expressions, namely belonging to, let out by and let to; and that, for the context, meaning of these words is clear; that the phrase belonging to denotes something more than simple tenancy and somewhat towards ownership; that let out means the persons who created tenancy; and that the phrase let to refers to the tenant. The Appellate Tribunal has observed that the premises let to the appellant are not covered under Section 3 of the Act; and, while endorsing the decision of the Rent Tribunal, has dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition.

(5). Learned counsel Mr.Manish Shishodia appearing for the petitioner-tenant has strenuously contended that the concept of ownership cannot be imported into the words belonging to as used in various clauses of Section 3 of the Act; and that, in their context, words are required to be given wide meaning and when the premises are let to the Trust or the Institution like the petitioner, the provisions contained in Chapters II and III would not apply for such exclusion clauses as contained in Section 3 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a notified Trust and in the circumstances of the case, no application for revision of r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document