Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) IN all these petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE facts necessary and germane to the matter are that second respondent initiated proceedings against all the petitioners for their eviction by taking shelter of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act of 1964') and consequently applications under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 were submitted before the first respondent - Estate Officer. In all these applications, it is, inter alia, averred by the second respondent - Nathdwara Temple Board that their tenancy had been terminated by serving a registered notice but inspite of that neither they have handed over the possession of the disputed premises nor they have paid the requisite amount of rent. In that background, while categorising their possession as that of unauthorised occupants, the second respondent claimed for their eviction and also prayed for relief of mesne profits for use and occupation. Taking cognizance of the application, the first respondent - Estate Officer issued notices to all the petitioners and solicited their reply. In the reply, petitioners have disputed the ownership of the second respondent - Nathdwara Temple Board and it is averred that land in question was transferred to Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai by the then Maharaja Dhiraj Goswami Maharaj Shri Govardhanlalji in Svt. 1945 on receipt of consideration of amount of Rs. 501/ - and therefore, the said trust is the owner of the property. It is further submitted in the return that petitioners are tenant of Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai and as such they are not obliged to pay rent to the second respondent -Nathdwara Temple Board. A reference is also made that earlier there was a civil litigation pertaining to the owner of the property wherein Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai was also a party and eventually the matter was amicably settled between the second respondent and the aforesaid trust by way of compromise. Placing heavy reliance on the terms of compromise, petitioners pleaded in their reply that in terms of compromise, Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai is the owner of the property and authorised to recover rent and, therefore, in that background, the proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the provisions of the Act of 1964 are not tenable. Petitioners have also asserted with full emphasis that they are regularly paying rent to the aforesaid trust and requisite receipts are also issued to them. Reiterating their stand that second respondent is not the owner of the property, petitioners have also alleged in the reply that no proof much less concrete proof has been placed on record by the second respondent to prove its ownership regarding the property in question. In totality, the petitioners have questioned the jurisdiction of the first respondent to proceed against them under the provisions of the Act of 1964 by contending that they are not unauthorised occupants. Taking shelter of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is also submitted in the reply that proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1964 are incompetent and a proper remedy is before the civil court. Emphasizing the status of Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai, it is averred in the return that the same is a registered Public Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act and, therefore, first respondent as Estate Officer is having no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. For want of impleadment of Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai, a specific objection was also incorporated in the reply that application suffers from the vice of non -joinder of necessary parties. In the alternative, it is also pleaded that even if the premises in question is taken to be properties of the second respondent, the same do not fall within the ambit of public premises under sub -section (b) of section 2 of the Act of 1964.
(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the reply submitted by the petitioners, some additional facts are also pleaded by the second respondent by way of rejoinder reiterating the stand taken in the original application. Regarding the factum of transfer of property on consideration by Maharaja Dhiraj Goswami Maharaj Shri Govardhanlalji, it is specifically averred in the rejoinder that no such sale deed was ever executed. The second respondent has also called upon the petitioner to place on record any document showing title of the property in the name of Seth Jamna Dass Lallu Bhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai. It is also submitted in the rejoinder that the property belongs to Prabhu Shree Shrinathji managed by the second respondent and deity being perpetual minor, transfer of any property owned by the deity is not permissible under the law.;