SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions have impugned the Notifications issued under Sec. 2 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Rent Act) therefore I propose to decide these petitions by a composite order.
(2.) COMMON grievance projected by the petitioners is that the State Government issued the impugned Notifications on grounds which were neither germane nor relevant to the policy and purpose of the Rent Act and the power was used by the State Government for an extraneous purpose. Respondents, who are Public Charitable Trusts under Sec. 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, in order to escape from the regulatory provisions of the Rent Act applied to the Respondent State for issuance of an order under Section 2 (3) of the Rent Act exempting the premises owned by the Trusts from all the provisions of the Rent Act. Section 2 (3) of the Rent Act provides that the State Government under its specific order if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient or to do so in public intere. 05. by notification in the official Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of the Act any premises owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution, the actual of the income derived from which is utilised for the purpose of the institution. Contextual facts of writ petition No. 129/1984 depict that the petitioner M/s, Shah Theatres took on lease for a period of 20 years the building known as `shri Talkies' situated at Mundri Mohalla Ajmer as back as in 1963. In September 1981 negotiations were started by the Settlor and working Trustee of the Trust with the Managing Director of the petitioner Company for the extension of the lease as well as for the sale for the premises leased out to the petitioner company who only agreed to increase the rent and renewal of lease. The respondent Trust with a view to obtain unreasonable high rate of rent approached the Government seeking exemption from the regulatory provisions of the Rent Act but the State Government rejected the application and refused `to grant exemption. Respondent Trust again approached the State Government and this time exemption was granted vide Notification dated September 13, 1983 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Sept. 29, 1983. The petitioners, 28 in number in Writ Petition Nos. 2028/1994 and 3121/1994 are the tenants of Smt. Tani Sethani Karnani Trust Suratgarh. The Trust instituted suits for eviction against the petitioners Bhagirath, Deoki Nandon, Ratan Lal, Hardev Krishna and Hari Chand with a view to deprive the tenants of the various benefits provided by the Rent Act, the Trust sought exemption under Section 2 (3) of the Rent Act and the State Government issued Notification on July 28, 1993 which was published in Rajasthan Gazette on July 30, 1993, directing that all the premises of Smt. Tani Sethani Karnani Trust Suratgarh stood exempted from the provisions of the Rent Act. Returns to the writ petition No. 129 of 1984 were filed on behalf of the Trust as also by the State Government justifying the Notification. On behalf of the State Government it was averred that the property was registered as Public Trust therefore in view of its charitable object and for public benefit, exemption was granted. It was also pleaded that initially the application of the Trust seeking exemption was not, accepted because of certain representations but after enquiries being made by the Home Department, the exemption was granted in accordances with law. Respondent Trust also made written objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. This court directed the State Government on November 30, 1999 to produce the record for perusal but the State Government failed to do so. In writ petition No. 2028 of 1984 and 3121 of 1994 the State Government did not choose to file returns and only Trust submitted the written statements justifying the exemption granted by the State Government.
(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that impugned Notifications are absolutely arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice as protection of the Rent Act has been withdrawn without, providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The respondent trusts have obtained exemptions not for any charitable, educational or religious purposes but with the sole object of throwing the petitioners out of the premises. The State Government without application of mind granted the exemption. On behalf of the petitioner M/s. Shah Theatres Pvt. Ltd. it is urged that the State Government having previously rejected the application of the respondent Trust for exemption, it did not have any power to review the same. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the State Government and the Trusts that exemption was granted in the public interest on the State Government's satisfaction. When such a satisfaction vests in the body like State Government, it can not be taken that the satisfaction was not based on any material. Reliance is placed on M/s. S. M. Mahendru and Company vs. State of Tamilnadu (1), and Mohd. Yamin vs. State of Rajasthan ;