- (1.) Since all these appeals are directed against the common order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions preferred by the appellants challenging the notification issued by the State Government dated 03.08.1996 (published on 28.08.1996), while exercising the powers under sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950' hereinafter), whereby the State Government has granted exemption to the respondent-trust from the application of the provisions of the Act of 1950, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are tenants in the premises owned by the respondent-trust. In the year 2003, the respondent-trust had filed eviction suits against the appellants on various ground including personal necessity, nuisance and default etc. in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara. In the plaint, the respondent-trust has mentioned that the State Government, vide notification dated 03.08.1996, has exempted it from the applicability of all the provisions of the Act of 1950 and as such, the respondent-trust is not bound to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1950. The said notification dated 03.08.1996 was subject to challenge by the appellants by way of writ petitions and those writ petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 07.11.2006, which is under challenge in these appeals. The main ground, on which the notification was challenged by the appellants in the writ petitions, was that the State Government, before issuing the impugned notification, did not apply its mind to the question whether the conditions for granting exemption to the premises owned by the respondent-trust were fulfilled and the trust is entitled to exemption.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the pleadings and documents, has observed as under: "I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, have given my thoughtful consideration and have perused the pleadings and the documents. From the documents placed on record by the respondent Trust, it appears that the State Government sought various information from the respondent Trust before issuing the exemption notification and after taking into consideration the information supplied by the respondent Trust with regard to utilization of the income arising from the properties of the trust for public and charitable purpose, that the exemption notification under Subsection (3) of Section 2 of Act of 1950 was issued by the State Government. The contention of the petitioner therefore, that the exemption notification has been issued without due application of mind, is wholly misconceived. On the contrary, the documents placed on record by the respondent Trust clearly establish that the State Government before issuing the impugned notification made a thorough inquiry from the respondent Trust and after satisfying itself about the fact that the income arising from the premises owned by the respondent Trust is being used for the public and charitable purpose, that the notification has been issued. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered in the case of M/s Shah Theaters , is not applicable to the facts of the present case, whereas, the judgment relied upon by the respondent squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions have no merit and the same are hereby dismissed.";