Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 737 (RAJ)

Kanhaiyalal Tillumal v. Dargah Committee

2018-03-12

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'appellate court') whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Ajmer. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant-plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court seeking eviction from plot No.75 described in para one of the plaint on the ground that the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, are not applicable since the plaintiff is a body corporate. It is also alleged in the plaint that by giving statutory notice dated 31.12.2000, tenancy of the defendant had been determined. 3. Defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein he admitted that he is tenant of the plaintiff. 4. Necessary issues were framed by the trial court. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereafter, the learned trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2007 against which the appeal was filed, the same was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017. 5. Hence this second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that indisputably, the Rajasthan Premises (control of rent and eviction) Act, 1950 is not applicable in the instant matter. He contended that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 'the act of 1971'), is applicable to the premises in question, therefore, in view of Section 10 A of the act of 1971, civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the present suit. Also, in view of Khawaja Dargah Committee Act, 1955, civil court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present suit. Hence, the decrees passed by both the courts below are nullity since the same were passed in inherent lack of jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Delhi Development Authority v. M/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 742. 8. Hence, the decrees passed by both the courts below are nullity since the same were passed in inherent lack of jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Delhi Development Authority v. M/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 742. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and contended that inclusion of Dargah Khawaja Saheb was made by the amendment in the 'Act of 1971' in April, 2003 by amendment Act, Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) (Amendment) Act, 2003 (for short 'Amendment Act of 2003') whereas the present suit had been filed by the respondent seeking eviction under the provisions contained in Transfer of Property Act in the year 2001, and therefore, the provisions of 'Act of 1971' are not applicable. Hence, no infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees. 9. Reliance has been placed on judgments passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.43/2010, decided on 15.07.2013, (Mahaveer Jain v. Durgah Committee, Ajmer), S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.480/2012, decided on 27.01.2014, (M/s Mohandas Tilluman v. Dargah Committee, Ajmer) & S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.81/2009, decided on 04.02.2014, (Ashok Kumar v. Dargah Committee, Ajmer). 10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the judgments and decrees under appeals as well as the provisions and ruling relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, this court is of the considered view that this second appeal is devoid of any merits. Indisputably, the suit was filed prior to the 'Amendment Act of 2003'. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the property comes within the ambit of Public Premises has no force, as by the 'Amendment Act, 2003', the properties administered by Dargah Khawaja Saheb were included in the definition of Public Premises. Prior to it, Transfer of Property Act was applicable on them. The issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.43/2010, decided on 15.07.2013, (Mahaveer Jain v. Durgah Committee, Ajmer), S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.480/2012, decided on 27.01.2014, (M/s Mohandas Tilluman v. Dargah Committee, Ajmer) & S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.81/2009, decided on 04.02.2014, (Ashok Kumar v. Dargah Committee, Ajmer). 11. 11. As far as Dargah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955 is concerned, this act nowhere mentions that civil court have no jurisdiction. Sa far as ruling in Delhi Development Authority (Supra) is concerned, since Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is not applicable to the premises in question, therefore, the same is not applicable in the present matter. 12. Both the courts below concurrently held that proper and legal notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served upon the appellant and his tenancy was legally determined. No question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 13. Hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.