- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders dated 4th November, 2011 and 15th February, 2012 passed by the newly constituted Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Additional Civil Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur).
(2.) IN so far as challenge to the order dated 15th February, 2012 is concerned, Mr. S.R. Joshi counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has very fairly abandoned the said challenge, in view of the objection of this court with regard to writ petition otherwise being potentially hit by misjoinder of cause of action inasmuch as two different orders passed by the newly constituted Rent Tribunal have been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Joshi has therefore confined his submissions to the question of jurisdiction of the newly constituted Rent Tribunal to entertain and hear an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') at the instance of the respondents no. 1 to 4 against the petitioner-Company. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 2001 provides that the Act of 2001 excludes the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal to entertain a petition involving dispute between landlord and tenant, where such dispute would be covered inter alia by the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (the 'Act of 1964' for brevity). Counsel submits that the petitioner company is a Government Company and premises in its possession a public premise within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1964. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, a dispute between the petitioner company (tenant) and respondents no. 1 to 4 herein the landlord would be a dispute covered by the Act of 1964 and therefore, excluded from the jurisdiction of the Act of 2001. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of S.R.B. Gaikwad versus The Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1977 Bombay 220. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the arguments pertaining to lack of jurisdiction of the newly constituted Rent Tribunal to hear the eviction petition laid under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 by the respondents no. 1 to 4 as landlords of the tenanted premises of which the petitioner-Company is in possession as a tenant are absolutely misdirected. The provisions of the Act of 1964 are in respect of the rights of the Government and its instrumentalities to evict "unauthorized occupants " as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1964 from premises owned or leased by them. However, such rights are to be exercised against "unauthorized occupants ". The State or its instrumentalities as lessees by resort to the Act of 1964 cannot conceivably resist an eviction petition under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Who would be the unauthorised occupant in such cases? The landlord? The petitioner company? And would the landlord in that event act as the estate officer under the Act of 1964? The suggestion as made of the counsel for the petitioner is absurd. The Act of 1964 applies only to 3rd parties holding on to land/structures in the ownership or with leasehold rights of the State or its instrumentalities and others defined under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1964 and not to landlords of such premises. The judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of S.R.B. Gaikwad (supra) was a judgment in a wholly different context. The said case was one where the Garrison Engineer (representing the Union of India) was the lessee of a particular premises and in the exercise of rights as a lessee thereof had allotted to the petitioner, one S.R.B. Gaikwad a flat therein. Subsequently, S.R.B. Gaikwad who had been put into possession by the Garrison Engineer purchased the property from the lessor, who had in the first instance leased it out to the Union of India. The question in the aforesaid circumstances before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was as to whether resort to the Act of 1964 by the Garrison Engineer could be had and the petitioner S.R.B. Gaikwad evicted therefrom as "unauthorised accupant " under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 as Gaikwad had first obtained possession thereof under the authority of the Garrison Engineer in spite of having subsequently purchased the flat from the original owner. The Bombay High held that even though the contractual lease of Union of India (Garrison Engineer) had been terminated by the erstwhile landlord who had sold the property in issue to S.R.B. Gaikwad, yet the right to possession on the basis of the governing rent statutes was safeguarded in the Union of India until evicted by due process of law and partook the character of "public premises ". The Bombay High Court held that S.R.B. Gaikwad albeit came into ownership subsequently, yet his current possession of the premises in issue at the relevant time related to the authority granted by the Garrison Engineer (Union of India) in the first instance. It was held that consequently the flat in the possession of Gaikwad was "public premises " and Gaikwad following withdrawal of permission to occupy the flat by the Garrison Engineer was rendered an unauthorised occupant of public premises liable to be evicted under the Act of 1964 Gaikwad's subsequent purchase of the flat notwithstanding. Obviously Gaikwad thereafter having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner would have the right to seek eviction of the Union of India and possession of the flat from the erstwhile lessee holding over following cancellation of the contractual lessee but protected under the rent statute, in accordance with law. In the present case, the respondents no. 1 to 4 as landlords have resorted to the Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against their tenant. The Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to address such an application filed by the respondents landlord against the petitioner-tenant. The Rajasthan Public Premises Act, 1964 entitles those detailed in Section 2(b) thereof to obtain possession from "unauthorised occupants " as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The landlord is not even remotely covered within the meaning of "unauthorised occupant " or "estate officer " as defined under the Act. Absent 'unauthorised occupant' and "estate officer " the Public Premises Act is not operative. The attempt of the counsel for the petitioner to rely on the case of SRB Gaikwad (supra) is absolutely misdirected as the case turned on its own facts absent here and in fact wholly different. I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner a Government Company has cynically approached this Court seeking to take a distorted and even absurd interpretation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises Act, 1964. Reliance was placed on a wholly inapposite judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referred above not even remotely relevant on the facts of the present case. Valuable Court time has been expanded without just and reasonable cost and public monies carelessly expanded on litigation palpably vexatious and frivolous. Consequently, costs of Rs.11000/- are visited on the petitioner company payable to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority ('RSLSA'). Copy to RSLSA. if cost not paid within four weeks from today, the RSLSA to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. ;