(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7580/2008. (Sohan Singh Vs. Shri Swami Samaj Sabha) DATE OF ORDER : September 25, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. Hemant Jain for petitioner. BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order Annex.-1 dated 29.08.2006 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar and appellate order Annex.-2 dated 01.08.2008 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sriganganagar. According to facts of the case, respondent Shri Swami Samaj Sabha (Regd.) filed an application before the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar for revision of rent. Admittedly, the petitioner is tenant of respondent Swami Samaj Sabha and, (2) while admitting the said fact, a reply was filed by the petitioner to the application for revision of rent before the learned Rent Tribunal. After hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent for revision of rent vide order dated 29.08.2006. The said judgment was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sriganganagar. As aforesaid, the appeal so filed by the petitioner was however dismissed by the appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 01.08.2008. Hence this writ petition. The petitioner has assailed the adjudication made by both the Courts below on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the application for revision of rent was not filed by authorised person, therefore, the application was not maintainable. Secondly, on the ground that the respondent Samaj was registered as a religious institution and a certificate to this effect was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag, Bikaner, therefore, as per Section 3 (VIII) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Chapters 2 and 3 thereof are not applicable. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, according to Section 3(viii) the respondent institution is a religious institution and, therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal as well as Rent (3) Appellate Tribunal committed error while rejecting the ground of the petitioner with regard to non-applicability of the provisions of Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act of 2001. Therefore, both the Courts below have fallen in error while allowing the application filed by the respondent Samaj for revision of rent. I have carefully perused both the orders impugned. Upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, it is revealed that both the grounds raised by the petitioner were considered properly and it is found upon the facts of the case that the President of the respondent Samaj Shri Chet Ram Swami was having the authorisation being President of the Samaj for filing the application for revision of rent. The learned Rent Tribunal, in para 6 of the order, specifically held that although the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag declared the election in which Chet Ram Swami was elected President as illegal vide judgment dated 20.12.2004. However, in appeal, the Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag, Udaipur set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag, Bikaner dated 20.12.2004. Copy of the said appellate judgment was brought to the notice of the Rent Tribunal, upon which, it has been held that Chet Ram Swami was competent to file the application for revision of rent (4) on behalf of the respondent Shri Swami Samaj Sabha. Secondly, I have perused Section 3(viii) of the Act of 2001 which runs as under : “Section3. Chapters II and III not to apply to certain premises and tenancies,- Nothing contained in Chapter Ii and III of this Act shall apply, - (viii) to any premises belonging to such religious, charitable or educational trust or class of such trusts as may be specified by the State Government by Notification in the Official Gazette.” Clause (viii) of Section 3, therefore, clearly speaks that it is not applicable in this case because it applies to any premises belonging to such religious, charitable or educational trust or class of such trusts as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette. In view of the aforesaid, the concurrent finding of both the Courts below does not require to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.