MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) 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. 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. 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. 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 rent was competent under the Act of 2001. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner being an aided institution, the State Government was a necessary party to the proceedings. Having examined the scheme of Section 3 of the Act of 2001, this Court is clearly of opinion that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner remain wholly baseless and deserve to be rejected.
(3.) SECTION 3 of the Act of 2001, which excludes certain premises and tenancies from operation of Chapters II and III of the Act, reads thus: 3. Chapter II and III not to apply to certain premises and tenancies.- Nothing contained in Chapter II and III of this Act shall apply,- (i) to the new premises built or completed after the commencement of this Act and let out through a registered deed in which date of completion of such premises is mentioned; (ii) to the premises existing at the commencement of this Act, if let out after such commencement for a period of five years or more through a registered deed and the tenancy is not terminable before expiry of its duration at the option of the landlord; (iii) to any premises let out for residential purposes before or after the commencement of this Act, the monthly rent whereof is- (a) rupees seven thousand or more, in the case of the premises situated in the municipal area of Jaipur city; (b) rupees four thousand or more, in the case of premises let out at places situated in the municipal areas comprising the Divisional Headquarters Jodhpur, Ajmer, Kota, Udaipur and Bikaner; (c) rupees two thousand or more, in case of premises let out at places situated in other municipal areas to which this Act extends for the time being; (iv) to any premises belonging to or let out by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority; (v) to any premises belonging to or let out by any body corporate constituted by a Central Act or a Rajasthan Act; (vi) to any premises belonging to a Government company as defined under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 1 of 1956); (vii) to any premises belonging to the Devasthan Department of the State, which are managed and controlled by the State Government or to any property of a Wakf, registered under the Wakf Act, 1995 (Central Act No. 43 of 1995); (viii) to any premises belonging to such religious, charitable or educational trust or class of such trusts as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette; (ix) to any premises belonging to or vested in a University established by any law for the time being in force; (x) to any premises let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or multinational companies, and private limited companies or public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more; Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause the expression ''bank'' means,- (i) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act,1955 (Central Act No. 23 of 1955); (ii) a subsidary bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (Central Act No. 38 of 1959); (iii) a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Central Act No. 5 of 1970) or under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act,1980 (Central Act No. 40 of`1980); (iv) any other bank, being a scheduled bank as defined in clause (e) of section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Central Act No. 2 of 1934); and (xi) to any premises let out to a citizen of a foreign country or to an embassy, High Commission, Legation or other body of a foreign State, or such international organisation as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette. '' The Act of 2001 has been enacted to provide for control of eviction from, letting of, and rents for certain premises in the State of Rajasthan and matters incidental thereto (vide the Preamble) while repealing its forerunner, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The words 'belonging' or 'let' have not been defined in the Act, but obviously for the Act dealing with letting of, and rents for, the premises, a few of the basic ingredients of such transaction may be taken into comprehension while looking at the contextual meaning of the expressions 'belonging to' and 'let to'. The action of letting out being the fundamental cause bringing into operation the Act of 2001; and 'lease' means a lease as defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, one may for the purpose of the definition of lease, lessor, lessee, rent etc. refer to Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act that reads thus: ''105. Lease defined.- A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined.- The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. '' Thus, the essential elements of a lease of immovable property are: the parties; the subject matter i. e. , the property; the demise of the property; the term or period of demise; and the consideration, or the rent. ;