JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat in Civil Appeal No.11/1998 Ram Chandra v. Mandir Shree Vishwanath Mahadev & Anr. who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant-tenant and affirmed the judgment and eviction decree dated 24.11.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur (South) in Civil Original Suit No.110/1996 Mandir Vishwanath Mahadev, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur & Anr. v. Ram Chandra . 2. The present appellant-defendant-tenant Ram Chandra, who is carrying on the transport business under the name and style of M/s Gayatri Roadways in the suit premises situated at a busy area of Delhi Gate, Udaipur has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the concurrent decree of eviction passed against him under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The present second appeal was admitted by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 17.09.1998 and the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court for consideration:- "(i) Whether a Mahant or Pujari of the Temple can maintain the suit of eviction on behalf of a registered public trust under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959; (ii) Whether the State Government Notification dated 15th January, 1995 governs the present case and grant immunity to the present plaintiffs to seek eviction without following the provision of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950." 3. The present suit was (No.110/1996) instituted by the respondent Temple namely, Mandir Shree Vishwanath Mahadev, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur and the plaintiff No.2 Shri Shyam Priya Sharan Shastri, the Mahant of the Temple, in the year 1996 after the tenancy of the appellant-defendant-tenant was terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 27.02.1996 w.e.f. 31.03.1996 on account of default in payment of rent of February and March, 1996. The suit shop was given to the defendant-tenant Ram Chandra on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month. The suit shop was given to the defendant-tenant Ram Chandra on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month. Receipt of the notice dated 27.02.1996 as well as the default in payment of rent was admitted by the defendant-tenant and, therefore, treating the tenancy as terminated under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the learned Trial Court has granted the decree of eviction on 24.11.1997 in Civil Original Suit No. 110/1996 Mandir Vishwanath Mahadev, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur & Anr. v. Ram Chandra S/o Narayan Lal Khandelwal . 4. The first appeal (No.11/1998) filed by the defendant-tenant Ram Chandra was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur on 30.07.1998 and being aggrieved of these two orders and concurrent decree of eviction, the present second appeal was filed by the defendant-tenant in this Court on 14.09.1998 which was admitted upon framing of the aforesaid substantial questions of law on 17.09.1998. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas appearing for the appellant-defendant-tenant urged that : (1) the exemption from applicability of the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 given to the respondent-plaintiff Public Trust was registered as a public trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 under the order dated 17.11.1981 of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur but the exemption which was given by the State Government to the respondent-plaintiffs Temple by issuing a Notification dated 15.11.1995 (Exhibit-9) could not be given any retrospective effect as this is a subordinate legislation and secondly, the vested rights of the defendant-tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 could not be divested or disturbed by such exemption to the landlord respondent-temple or the Trust and, therefore, in the absence of any regular suit instituted under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 by establishing the specific grounds envisaged under Section 13 of that Act, the decree of eviction could not have been granted under the provisions of Transfer of Properly Act, as has been done in the present case and, therefore, the second appeal of defendant deserves to be allowed and the decree of eviction deserves to be reversed. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936 and the judgment in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by L.Rs & Ors. v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by L.Rs. AIR 1996 SC 238 . The learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas also referred to the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, specially, Sections 53 & 60 of the said Act and submitted with regard to the substantial question No.1, quoted herein above, that the power to institute any suit or proceeding in a Court of law in relation to a public trust is only with a Committee of Management constituted under Section 53 of the said Act and the present suit instituted by the Public Trust and the Mahant of the Trust is, therefore, not maintainable and the Question No.1 also deserves to be answered in favour of the defendant-tenant and the decree of eviction deserves to be reversed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Shreyansh Mardia on behalf of Mr. Pradeep Shah appearing for the respondent-landlord Temple and the Mahant submitted that firstly, these arguments were not raised before the Courts below and neither any issue has been framed with regard to these submissions, as indicated above by the learned counsel for the appellant, nor any specific pleadings were made before the Courts below in this regard and, therefore, the above quoted substantial questions of law do not arise out of the orders and judgments of the Courts below and, therefore, are not required to be answered. Rebutting the submissions on merits made by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs Mr. Shreyansh Mardia also submitted that the civil suit in the present case has been instituted by the Public Trust itself as plaintiff No.1 and the Mahant of the Temple himself was authorised to represent the Public Trust in question by the order dated 17.11.1981 of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur which has never been challenged and under which order only the said Public Trust was created and registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and, therefore, the question of maintainability of the present suit deserves to be answered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. Secondly, the learned counsel Mr. Secondly, the learned counsel Mr. Shreyansh Mardia submitted that once the plaintiff Trust was exempted wholly from the applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 2 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 ('the Act of 1950') by issuance of Notification dated 15.11.1995, which is also quoted below, there was no question of the respondents-plaintiffs availing the remedy of eviction under the provisions of Rent Control Act of 1950 and, therefore, the notice dated 27.02.1996 terminating the tenancy of the defendant-tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was rightly served and the receipt of the notice and default in payment of rent stipulated in the notice is not even disputed by the appellant-defendant-tenant and, therefore, the decree of eviction granted in favour of the plaintiffs deserves to be affirmed and the aforesaid substantial questions of law deserve to be answered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-tenant deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record of the case, judgments of the Courts below and have also examined the judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 8. The power to exempt from the applicability of the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 and issuance of the Notification dated 15.11.1995 by the State Government is neither in question nor is disputed before this Court. The said Notification dated 15.11.1995 is reproduced herein below in extenso for ready reference:- " jktLFkku ljdkj uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx dzekad% ua04 ( 2 ) ufovk@3@95 t;iqj] fnukad 15 uoEcj] 1995 vf/klwpuk jktLFkku ifjlj ( fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa csn[kyh ) vf/kfu;e] 1950 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e xvii dh /kkjk 2 dh mi/kkjk ( 3 ) }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa jkT; ljdkj dk lek/kku gks tkus ij fd yksdfgr esa ,slk djuk vko';d gS] jkT; ljdkj }kjk eafnj Jh fo'oukFk egknsok] ckiw cktkj] mn;iqj ds leLr ifjljksa dks tks buds LokfeRo esa gS] mDr vf/kfu;e ds leLr micU/kksa ds izorZu ls NwV iznku dh tkrh gSA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] ,l0Mh0@& 'kklu mi lfpo " 9. From the bare perusal of the said Notification, it is clear that the respondents-plaintiffs Public Trust - Mandir Shree Vishwanath Mahadev, Bapu Bazar, Udaipur has been exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950. It is misconceived on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant to argue that this Notification is sought to be given retrospective effect or that any vested rights of the appellant-defendant-tenant is likely to be divested or disturbed or taken away by the present Notification. 10. The principles enunciated in the judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant-tenant, that unless law is made specifically retrospective to divest any vested or substantial right, no retrospectivity can be assumed, is correct and there is no quarrel on this principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these two judgments, but this Court does not find any such retrospectivity in the Notification, expressly or by any implication in the present case. The question is of availing remedy for seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises in question, which is a property of the Public Trust or Temple. The civil suit in the present case was filed in the year 1996 after the Public Trust was exempted from the applicability of all the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950 vide Notification dated 15.11.1995 and, therefore, there was no question for the respondents-plaintiffs Public Trust to take resort to the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950 for eviction of the defendant-tenant after they were exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950. As already noticed, there is no challenge to the validity and legality of the Notification dated 15.11.1995 before this Court nor it could possibly be done in the present second appeal. As already noticed, there is no challenge to the validity and legality of the Notification dated 15.11.1995 before this Court nor it could possibly be done in the present second appeal. Thus, the grounds seeking eviction of the defendant-tenant under the Act of 1950 were not required to be established by the plaintiffs but the validity of termination of tenancy of the defendant-tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be established and on it, the compliance with the provisions of the Act is not even disputed by the appellant-defendant-tenant, as neither the receipt of the valid notice or default in payment of rent was ever disputed by the appellant-defendant-tenant and the findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below, after proper and correct appreciation of evidence led before them, are binding on this Court under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Coming to the second argument raised by the learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant-tenant, that the suit in the present case could have been filed only by a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with Section 53 read with Section 61(2)(g) of the Public Trust Act, suffice is to say that the suit seeking eviction of the appellant-defendant was filed in the year 1996, i.e. after issuance of the Notification dated 15.11.1995, by the Public Trust, as the plaintiff No.1 and the Shri Shyam Priya Sharan Shastri, Mahant of the Temple, who was also authorised to manage the affairs of the Temple by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur under the order dated 17.11.1981 (Exhibit-1) and, therefore, serving of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the appellant-defendant-tenant and thereafter, availing the remedy of filing the present suit seeking eviction of the defendant-tenant by the plaintiff No.2 (Shri Shyam Priya Sharan Shastri, the Mahant of the Temple) cannot be called in question and the question No.1, therefore, clearly deserves to be answered in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and it is so done. 12. 12. For the reasons given herein above, the second substantial question of law No.2 also deserves to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents that once, the exemption is given to the plaintiff Public Trust from the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950, there is no question of divesting or disturbing any vested or substantive rights of the defendant tenant under the provisions of Act of 1950. This Court is also of the view that the no vested rights as such are given to the tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 and the non-obstante provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act of 1950 merely restrict the eviction of tenants otherwise upon establishing the specific grounds of Section 13 and not otherwise. This Court finds that once the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950 itself is ruled-out for the respondents-plaintiff Trust, there is no occasion to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1950, as the decree of eviction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs-Trust under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the question No.2, as framed and quoted herein above is also answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. 13. At this juncture, the learned counsel Mr. Shreyansh Mardia appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the appellant-defendant-tenant has not paid any rent or mese profits for the use of shop in question from the month of February, 1996 till now and, therefore, suitable directions in this regard may be issued. 14. For the reasons given herein above, this second appeal of the defendant-tenant deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by the defendant-tenant to the plaintiffs-respondents within three months. The appellant-defendant-tenant is directed to clear-off the arrears of rent or mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 400/- from the month of February, 1996 till January, 2015 within three months from today and from the month of February, 2015, he is directed to pay mesne profit in relation to the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 15. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31.07.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. 15. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31.07.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month commencing from February, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of six months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 16. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith. *******