Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh (Confed) Ltd. Vs. Rent Control Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - state of rajasthan (i), it has been clearly laid down though in reference to rule 19-aand sub clause (in) thereof that a cooperative society cannot be said as having been created by an act of the state or the central legislation or under the control of any government. by referring section 3 sub section (x) gave much emphasis that sub section 10 clearly indicates that the petitioner corporation come under the purview of section 3 sub section (x) as the public sector undertakings or any corporation established by or under any central or state act. 23. heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the provisions of law as well as the judgments referred before me. i also carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by the rent control tribunal dated 4.5.2004. 24. upon perusal of section 3 sub section (x) it reveals that section 3 of the rent control act 2001 clearly shows that chapter ii and iii not to apply to certain premises and tenancies.k.s. rathore, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the rent control tribunal, jaipur and declare that the provisions of section 18 of the rent control act, 2001 do not apply to the present case.2. the main question involved in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner federation is covered by the provisions of section 3 sub section (x) of the rent control act, 2001. in respect of the premises, which were let to a public sector undertaking in which the capital of the state government was to the extent of 95% and the said undertaking was being administered by the officers of the state government and therefore chapters ii and iii of the rent control act were not applicable in the present case.3. this main issue is highlighted by the petitioner in the entire writ petition with the support of the provisions of rajasthan rent control act and the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court.4. the brief facts of the case are that the respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed the original application no. 302 of 2003 before the rent control tribunal, jaipur. in the application the respondents claimed the relief of eviction of the petitioner federation from the premises on the ground that the tenancy of the petitioner federation had been terminated by notices served on the petitioner federation dated 31.7.2003 and 29.8.2003 as per the provisions of section 18 of the rent control act.5. the reply to the application has been filed by the petitioner federation and it was denied on its part that chapters ii and iii were not applicable to the premises in question as the tenant happened to be a public sector undertaking as per the provisions of section 3 00. the provisions of section 3 (x)are not applicable to the petitioner federation and the petitioner federation is only a cooperative society registered under the rajasthan cooperative society act and the entire administration is vested in the board of directors.6. the rent tribunal, jaipur framed the issue, which reads as under:........7. the tribunal after hearing the matter and after considering the judgment reported in air 1985 sc 973 (supra), came to the conclusion that petitioner is a corporation covered under section 3 (x) of the act of 2001. thus, chapter-ii and hi of the act are not applicable.8. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding given by the tribunal is contrary to the provisions and scheme of the rajasthan rent control act, 2001.9. learned counsel for the petitioner mr. garg has referred rule 3 sub rule (x), which reads as under:'to any premises let to banks, or any public sector undertakings or any corporation established by or under any central or state act, or multinational companies, and private limited companies or public limited companies having a paid up share capital or rupees one crore or more.'10. by referring sub rule (x) of rule 3 the petitioner submits that by reading of the provisions reveals that the premises would be exempt from the provisions of chapter ii and iii of the act only when the premises have been let to banks, or any public sector undertakings or any corporation established by or under any central or state act, or multinational companies and private limited companies or public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more.11. by referring this provision mr. garg submits that the present premises would not be covered by sub clause a, c & d and it is not mentioned by the respondents that petitioner federation is either a bank or multinational companies or private limited companies and paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more. however, it is admitted that it is a corporation as it was registered under rajasthan cooperative act but the same time mr. garg submits that this corporation is not established by or under any central or state act, therefore, the provisions of section 3 sub-section 10 are not applicable to the instant case.12. the order of the tribunal is further challenged on the ground that the tribunal did not apply its mind and it has committed an error apparent on the face of the record when the rulings cited before it were not taken into consideration. in the case of krishna dutt sharma v. state of rajasthan (i), it has been clearly laid down though in reference to rule 19-aand sub clause (in) thereof that a cooperative society cannot be said as having been created by an act of the state or the central legislation or under the control of any government. the rent tribunal did not apply its mind to the ratio decided of the authority of this court and the law as espoused by it in regard to whether a cooperative society can be equated to be a corporation as may have been created under the act.13. another mistake pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal has not rightly appreciated the judgment in the case of daman singh v. state of punjab and ors. (2). the ratio decided of this case is that a cooperative society, which is registered under the cooperative societies act is a body corporate and it has been so held for it has common seal and a right to sue or be sued and perpetual succession. although learned counsel for the petitioner agree with the proposition and the ratio decided by the hon'ble supreme court but the same time he submitted that the petitioner corporation is registered under the cooperative societies act but not created or established under state act or central act. thus the rent tribunal has misinterpreted the law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court.14. mr. garg also referred section 7 of the rajasthan cooperative societies act and section 30 of punjab cooperative societies act. by reading these two sections he submits that both the sections are peri-materia and as per the provisions of section 7 no order of eviction can be passed unless the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for four months and on the ground mentioned in section 13 of the raj. premises control of rent & eviction act, 1950.15. in support of his aforesaid submissions mr. garg placed reliance on the judgments (krishan dutt sharma v. state of rajasthan (supra)), (shivnath das v. ramesh chander patnayak (3)), (salil kumar v. hindustan steel ltd. (4)), (karmam swamy rao v. kumul sanskrit (5)), (sanwarmal pansari v. churu w.u. sahkari bhandar ltd. churu (6)), and (suryadev rai v. ramchander rai & ors (7)).16. per contra learned counsel for the respondents mr. r.p. garg submits that as respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed a petition against the petitioner rajasthan rajya sahkari upbhokta sangh limited before the rent control tribunal, jaipur for their eviction and damages for use and occupation of the premises as the respondent nos. 2 to 5 are landlords of the said premises in question.17. respondents also raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that this present petition is filed against the interim order passed by the rent control tribunal dated 4.5.2004. as the rent control tribunal only decided one issue out of the four issues framed by the tribunal and since the case is still pending before the tribunal and the case is fixed for evidence of the parties, therefore, the present petition filed against the interim order is not maintainable.18. petitioner has got other alternative efficacious remedy under the act and without availing alternative efficacious remedy the petitioner cannot file the present petition.19. learned counsel for the respondents also referred the provisions of section 15, which provides time schedule to ensure final disposal of the petition within 340 days. the section 15 of the rent control act wherein eviction order if any passed by the tribunal is not executed for a period of three months then the appellate tribunal has also power to pass interlocutory order during the pendency of the appeal. in such circumstances without availing alternative efficacious remedy and without awaiting the final decision the petitioner rushed up to this court by way of filing this writ petition and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count alone.20. sub section (x) of section 3 of the rent control act 2001 is also referred by the respondents. by referring section 3 sub section (x) gave much emphasis that sub section 10 clearly indicates that the petitioner corporation come under the purview of section 3 sub section (x) as the public sector undertakings or any corporation established by or under any central or state act.21. mr. garg also referred section 18 of the rent control act, which reads as under:jurisdiction of rent tribunal- (1) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this act extends (for the time being), only the rent tribunal and no civil court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto, filed under the provisions of this act;provided that rent tribunal shall, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contain in chapter ii and iii of this act do not apply, have due regard to the provisions of transfer of properties act, 1882 (act no. 4 of 1882) the indian contract act, 1872 (act no. 9 of 1872), or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before a civil court by way of suit.provided further that nothing contained in this act shall be deemed to empower the rent tribunal to entertain a petition involving such dispute between landlord and tenant to which provisions of the rajasthan public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1964 (act no. 2 of 1965) and the rajasthan premises (requisition and eviction) ordinance, 1949 apply.(2) where the petition only for recovery of unpaid rent or arrears of rent is filed, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in section 14 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition.(3) where the petition for recovery of possession is filed in respect of the premises or tenancies to which the provisions of chapter ii and iii of this act do not apply, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in section 15 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition.(4) a petition shall be instituted before the rent tribunal, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the premises is situated.'22. he has placed reliance on the judgment of daman singh v. state (supra). he further submits that the petitioner is a corporation but does not admit that the petitioner corporation is created under the state and central act. by referring aforesaid judgments learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no restriction in section 3 sub section (x). under the provisions of section 3 sub section 10 every corporation, which is registered under the cooperative societies act have been under the corporation act covered by the aforesaid provisions.23. heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the provisions of law as well as the judgments referred before me. i also carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by the rent control tribunal dated 4.5.2004.24. upon perusal of section 3 sub section (x) it reveals that section 3 of the rent control act 2001 clearly shows that chapter ii and iii not to apply to certain premises and tenancies. provided to any premises let to banks, or any public sector undertakings or any corporation established created by or under any central or state act, or multinational companies, and private limited companies or public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more.25. by bare perusal of the provisions of sub clause (x) of section 3 reveals that sub clause (x) includes banks, public sector undertakings and corporation. the word 'by or under' reveals that by or under the central or state act.26. in my considered opinion as the petitioner corporation is registered under the corporation act it is not disputed that the petitioner corporation is created or established under the central or state act but it is also not disputed that it is registered under the cooperative societies act meaning thereby the petitioner corporation is , registered by cooperative societies act.27. i am not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the provisosions of subsection (x) of section 3 are not applicable to the instant case. in case the (sic) of sub-section (x) of section 3 applies to the instant case the provisions (sic) in chapter ii and iii are certainly not applicable to the instant case.28. i also considered the judgments, which are relied by learned counsel for both the parties and the judgment of daman singh and ors. v. state of punjab and ors. (supra). in para no. 5 of the judgment the hon'ble supreme court has held that 'what is a corporation?' and observed as under:'we have already extracted section 30 of the punjab cooperative societies act which confers on every cooperative society the status of a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold property, enter into contracts, institute and advance suits and other legal proceeds and to do all things necessary for the purpose it is constituted. there cannot, therefore, be the slightest doubt that a cooperative society is a corporation as commonly understood.'29. the hon'ble supreme court in concluding portion of para 9 held as under:'in the cases before us, we are concerned with the cooperative societies which from the very inception are governed by the statutes. they are created by the statutes, they are controlled by the statutes......'30. the ratio decided by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of daman singh is fully applicable to the instant case.31. i also carefully gone through the provisions of section 106 of the transfer of properties act and section 53 of the contract act, which is referred by the respondents. i also gave my thoughtful consideration to the judgments referred by the petitioner, which are not applicable to the present controversy.32. as observed herein above that the provisions of section 3 sub section (x) are applicable to the instant case, in such circumstances, i do not find any fault in the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the rent tribunal, jaipur. since the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the final order passed by the rent control tribunal, therefore, it is not such a case where while exercising power under article 226 the order dated 4.5.2004 requires any interference.33. consequently, the writ petition fails and is herewith dismissed with no order as to costs.34. it is expected from the tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously and the petitioner is at liberty to file appeal against the final order, if any, passed by the rent tribunal as per the law and also liberty to raise all just and valid objections before the tribunal.