SHYAMLAL MOTILAL RATHI Vs. TEMPLE BOARD NATHDWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the orders passed by Additional District Judge, Rajsamand ('Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application(s) preferred by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) and Order 11 Rule 12 read with Sec. 151 CPC. Since, the controversy involved in this batch of writ petition is common, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order, however, facts of SBCWP No.2687/2024 are taken into consideration illustratively.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent Temple Board, Nathdwara preferred an application seeking eviction of the petitioner No.1/tenant from the suit shop No.4 in question situation in an inn ( /keZ'kkyk) under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 ('Act of 1964'). In the application, it was inter-alia alleged that the inn (/keZ'kkyk) was in the ownership of the Temple Board and non-applicant No.1/petitioner No.1 was the tenant and the non-application No.2/petitioner No.2, Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai ('Trust') was authorized agent to collect the rent. When the tenant failed to pay the rent, a notice dtd. 27/3/2008 was issued by the Temple Board terminating the tenancy. A prayer was thus made that the Temple Board is entitled to get vacant possession and due rent alongwith mesne profit.

(3.) After service of the summons, a reply to application seeking eviction was filed by applicant No.1/petitioner No.1 while denying ownership of the Temple Board as also landlord-tenant relationship and in fact the owner of the inn ( /keZ'kkyk) including the shop in question was the applicant No.2- Trust. It was thus averred in the reply that the applicant- Temple Board has no right to terminate the tenancy. Reply was also filed by applicant No.2- Trust questioning the maintainability of the application under the Act of 1964, inasmuch as it was the public premises. It was further alleged that the suit property was purchased by the Trust the inn was constructed by the Trust.