JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of notification dated 25.6.15 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Clause (viii) of Section 3 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”), whereby all the premises belonging to a religious trust namely, Shri Purandas Ki Bagichi Trust, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent trust’) have been exempted from applicability of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in a premises belonging to the respondent trust since 22.6.1985. The control of rent and eviction in the State of Rajasthan at the relevant time was governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short “the Act of 1950”). However, by virtue of notification dated 15.10.1996 issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950, the premises of the respondent trust were exempted from applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950. 3. The respondent trust filed a petition against the petitioner under the Act of 2001 seeking eviction from the premises let out in terms of provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, taking shelter of notification dated 15.10.1996 issued under the provisions of the Act of 1950. The petition seeking eviction was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara vide order dated 30.11.2011 holding that the Act of 1950 having been repealed, by virtue of provisions of Section 32 of the Act of 2001, the notification granting exemption to the premises of the respondent trust, does not remain operative. The appeal preferred by the respondent trust against the order dated 30.11.2011 was allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, vide order dated 7.4.2017. The legality of the decision of the Appellate Rent Tribunal was questioned by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 5399/17 which was allowed by the learned Single Jude of this Court vide order dated 2.4.2008, the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal was set aside and the order passed by the Rent Tribunal was restored. In the meantime, the respondent trust again made an application to the State Government seeking exemption from applicability of provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001. In the meantime, the respondent trust again made an application to the State Government seeking exemption from applicability of provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001. After due consideration, the State Government vide notification dated 30.6.2015 granted exemption to all the premises belonging to the respondent trust from applicability of provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001. 4. It is averred that general public and the tenants in the premises belonging to the respondent trust made complaint/representations to the State Government to withdraw the exemption granted on various grounds, but to no avail. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the notification earlier issued under the provisions of the Act of 1950 has come to an end and therefore, before issuing the 1950 has come to an end and therefore, before issuing the notification under the Act of 2001, granting exemption to the respondent trust from applicability of the provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001, the State Government was under an obligation to issue a public notice and the decision to grant the exemption could have been taken only after a proper inquiry regarding the activities of the respondent trust. Learned counsel submitted that the office bearers of the respondent trust are involved in unauthorised and criminal acts and the properties of the trust are being alienated by the trustees frustrating the objects of the religious trust. Learned counsel submitted that since the respondent trust is not functioning for fulfillment of its objects, it could not have been granted exemption in terms of provisions of Clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel submitted that undoubtedly, under Section 3(viii) of the Act of 2001, the exemption could be granted to the premises of the religious, charitable or educational trust or class of such trusts from the applicability of provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001, but the same can always be subjected to challenge and thus, the State Government is under an obligation to disclose the material on the basis of which it was satisfied to grant exemption to the respondent trust. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Satya Narain Sharma v. State of Rajasthan : (2018) 4 WLC 671 . In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Satya Narain Sharma v. State of Rajasthan : (2018) 4 WLC 671 . Learned counsel would submit that the decision of the State Government in granting exemption without holding a proper inquiry, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the impugned notification deserves to be quashed. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the respondent trust was granted exemption from applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950 in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950. The Act of 1950 was repealed by virtue of provisions of Section 32 of the Act of 2001. In this view of the matter, the respondent trust invoking provisions of clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001, made an application seeking exemption from applicability of the provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001. 8. To appreciate the issue raised, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 and clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001 may be beneficially quoted: Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 “(3) The State Government if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any premises owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution the whole of the income derived from which is utilized for the purpose of the institution.” Clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001 “(viii) to any premises belonging to such religious, charitable or educational trust as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 9. A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 reveals that for grant of exemption to any premises from all or any of the provisions of the Act of 1950, following triad requirements were to be fulfilled: (i) The premises must be owned by any educational, religious or charitable institution. (ii) The whole of the income derived from the premises must be utilised for the purpose of that institution. (ii) The whole of the income derived from the premises must be utilised for the purpose of that institution. (iii) The exemption is necessary or expedient or expedient in public interest. 10. But as per the provisions of clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001, the State Government is empowered to grant exemption to any premises belonging to religious, charitable or educational trust or class of such trusts, as may be specified from the provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001. Suffice it to say that the fulfillment of the conditions (ii) & (iii) referred supra, as provided for under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950 is not envisaged under the provisions of clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001. 11. In Satya Narain Sharma's case (supra), a Bench of this court while upholding the vires of the provisions of clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001, observed: “17. Clearly, Section 3(viii) itself provides that exemption could be granted to only such public trusts where premises belong to religious, charitable or educational trust or class of such trusts as may be specified by the State Government. Even the class of such trusts, as may be specified by the State Government, has to have the character analogous or similar to religious, charitable or educational. The predominant object of the trust therefore should be religious, charitable or educational. The context in which the exemption is granted is that the protection available to the tenants under Chapter II and III of the Act of 2001 would not be available to the tenants of the premises let out by such trusts, the major being the grounds of eviction contained in Section 9 of Chapter III and eviction on other various grounds contained in different provisions of that Chapter of the Act. It is no doubt true that exemption notification granted in a particular case to a particular trust may be subjected to challenge in that case. When it is done, the government would be obliged to disclose the materials by which it was satisfied to extend such exemption to such trust but it cannot be said that the provisions of the aforesaid vest unguided and unbridled power in the State Government for extending exemption to such public trusts.” 12. When it is done, the government would be obliged to disclose the materials by which it was satisfied to extend such exemption to such trust but it cannot be said that the provisions of the aforesaid vest unguided and unbridled power in the State Government for extending exemption to such public trusts.” 12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as per the trust deed of the respondent trust placed on record by the petitioner, the trust has been constituted with the religious object to perform sewa puja of Thakurji, charitable objects to run the educational institution, gaushalas and hospitals etc. and to extend appropriate service to poor, sufferers and the saints. Admittedly, the trust was availing the benefit of exemption from the provisions of the Act of 1950 since 1996 till the coming into force of the Act of 2001. Further, a perusal of the proceedings taken by the State Government placed on record reveals that before granting exemption in terms of the clause (viii) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001 to the premises belonging to the respondent trust, the report was obtained from the District Collector, Bhilwara regarding the activities of the respondent trust. That apart, on the report being requisitioned by the State Government, the Commissioner Devasthan also recommended for granting exemption to the respondent trust. In this view of the matter, in no manner, it could be inferred that the exemption has been granted by the State Government to the respondent trust acting in perfunctory manner. On the basis of the bald allegations levelled by the petitioner against the trustees of the respondent trust regarding their involvement in irregularities or illegalities, this Court cannot enter into a roving and fishing inquiry so as to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the exemption granted to the respondent trust is justified or not. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the material on record, the decision taken by the State Government in granting exemption to the premises of the respondent trust from the applicability of the provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001 cannot be faulted with. 13. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner lacks merits, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.