UMMED SINGH SUSHILA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR MALPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 27. 9. 2006 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. filed by the present petitioner on the ground that the application for eviction filed before the Rent Tribunal under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (henceforth to be referred to as `the Act', for short) was not maintainable.

(3.) MR. Anil Upman also submitted that the trial Court while holding that since the petitioner's trust was not notified by the State Government as such under clause (viii) and only on that count, this clause would not apply, is an error in law because the words "as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette" are attached to only the words "class of such trusts", which are separated in clause (viii) by the word "or". Elaborating his submission, he says that if all such religious, charitable or educational trusts were also intended to be specified by the State Government, the word "and" would have been there in this provision instead of word "or".