ATUL SINGH VISHNOI Vs. PUSHPA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS S. B. Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellant defendant-tenant (hereinafter referred as the defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 21. 11. 03, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 3. 5. 2001, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur.

(2.) THE facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are that a civil suit No. 43/99 for eviction and arrears of rent was instituted by the respondent plaintiff landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the `plaintiff') on 15. 2. 99, with the averments that residential house No. 3/19 of 225 sq. yards area situated at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur was let out to the defendant-appellant on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-, in 1993. THE plaintiff claimed eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises to start a maternity and child hospital with the averments that the plaintiff was going to retire on 31. 3. 1999, as a Junior Specialist (Gyne), her son Rajiv Jain had passed M. D. (pediatrics) and was working as a Child Specialist in a private hospital on monthly payment of Rs. 4,000/-, her daughter-in-law had also passed MBBS, DGO and was a gynecologist but was unemployed and her husband had also retired in 1993. THE defendant in written statement while admitting the tenancy denied the grounds of eviction. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent to Rs. 2000/- p. m.

(3.) FIRSTLY the objection with regard to non-applicability of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (in short the Act, 1982) in view of the 74th Amendment in the Constitution of India is taken up. This Act of 1982 was enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature. It extends to Jaipur Region area and it is not in dispute that the Malviya Nagar area lies in Jaipur Region. The J. D. A. was established under Section 3 of the Act, 1982. Powers and functions of the J. D. A. are contained under Section 16 of the Act, 1982 including the preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans. Section 17 provides that no other authority or person shall undertake any development within the Jaipur Region without permission of the J. D. A. Sections 21 and 22 provide for preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans by the J. D. A. Section 25 provides for subsequent modification of Plans. Sub-section (2-a) of Section 25 provides that the Authority or the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, or any other body or Committee, as may be authorized by the State Government in this behalf, may, in order to promote plan development of any part of the Jaipur Region in more efficient manner, make such modifications in land use of the plan for such area, as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 65 of the Act, 1982 makes a provision for charges by the Authority as conversion charges for conversion of the use of land from residential purpose to commercial or any other purpose and such rate and date shall be notified by the State Government. The controversy between the parties centres to the point that as to whether it is the J. D. A. or Nagar Nigam empowered to permit the change in land use in the Jaipur Region. As stated hereinabove, the suit house in situated in Malviya Nagar and the area of Malviya Nagar lies in the Jaipur Region and thus as per relevant provisions of the Act, 1982 as referred hereinabove the J. D. A. is empowered to allow conversion of the use of land from residential purpose to commercial or any other purpose and is also empowered to modify change in land use as shown in Master Development Plan. The J. D. A. is operating in the Jaipur Region under the Act, 1982 and till the Act, 1982 is declared ultra virus, the statement made by learned counsel Sh. Jain cannot be accepted that the Jaipur Nagar Nigam is empowered to permit the change in land use in Malviya Nagar area. Thus the first objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent goes away.