AYAL DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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: