Shyam Sunder Byas, J.
1. This appeal of the tenant-defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated September 27, 1983 by which the plaintiff's suit for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed with costs.
2. Briefly recapitulated the relevant facts are that the plaintiff K.C. Jain instituted a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant in the Court below on January 23, 1982. The case setup by him is that he is the owner of bungalow No. 28 situate in Polo-ground locality of the city of Udaipur. It was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on January 1, 1978 for a period of two years on the monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. The tenancy was oral. The duration of tenancy came to an end on December 31, 1979. The tenant, however, did not vacate the suit premises and approached the plaintiff to continue the tenancy for next three years and offered a sum of Rs. 720/- per month as rent. The plaintiff agreed to keep the defendant tenant for one year more on a monthly rent of Rs. 720/-. The defendant, thus continued in possession of the demised property. Even after December 31, 1981 (31-12-81) i.e. the expiry of one year, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and continued to deposit rent in the plaintiff's account in a bank at rate of Rs. 600/- pea month instead of Rs. 720/- per month. A notice was served on the defendant requiring him to vacate the premises and pay the ramainding balance of amount of arrears of rent at rate of Rs. 120/- per month. This notice was received by the defendant on January 2, 1982. The defendant still then did not vacate the suit premises, nor paid the remaining balance of the arrears of rent at rate of Rs. 120/- per month over and above the old rate of Rs. 600/- per month. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit for (1) the recovery of Rs. 1320/- as the remaining balance of arrears of rent, (2) eviction of the defendant from the demised property and (3) recovery of damages for use and occupation at rate of Rs. 720/- per month from January 1, 1982 and onwards till the defendant surrenders the possession of the demised property to the plaintiff. It was stated in para 5, of the plaint that the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950(referred to as 'the Act' here in after) do not apply to the demised property by virtue of the exemption contained in Section 2(2) of the Act. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to seek the defendant's eviction without seeking recourse to the grounds of eviction enumerated in Section 13(1) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The tenancy was admitted but it was denied that later on the rent was increased from Rs 600/- to Rs. 720/-. It was denied that provisions of the Act do not apply to the demised property or that the demised property was exempted from its operation Under Section 2(2) of the Act. The validity of the notice was also challenged. The learned District Judge raised the following issues for decision:
(1) Whether the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 are not applicable to the demised property for reasons pleaded in para 5 of the plaint ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent at rate of Rs. 720/- per month?
(2A) Whether the notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant is invalid?
In the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself and adduced no evidence. In rebuttal, no evidence was adduced by the defendant. On the conclusion of trial, the learned District Judge recorded his findings as under:
(1) the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the demised property;
(2) the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent at rate of Rs. 600/- per month and not at the rate of Rs. 720/- per month; and
(3) the notice served on the defendant by the plaintiff was not invalid.
The result was that the suit for eviction was decreed and the defendant was directed to vacate the demised property and surrender its possession to the plaintiff within two months and to pay damages for use and occupation at rate of Rs. 600/- per month with interest at rate of Rs. 6% per annum. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come-up in appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-appellant and Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent.
4. At the fore-front of his arguments Mr. Parekh raised the contention that the entire approach of the court below on issue No. 1 was completely erroneous and unsustainable in law. It was argued that the provisos relating to the exemptions of the provisions enumerated in Section 2(2) of the Act were wrongly applied in respect of the demised-property. It was argued that a bare reading of the provisos contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) mentioned in Section 2(2) make it amply clear that the exemptions do not apply to the premises in dispute. Where a citizen lets out his premises to the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority, he cannot seek the eviction simpliciter on the ground that the tenant is the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority. The exemptions are applicable only to these premises which belong to the Central Government or a State Government or a Local Authority etc. It was contended that the suit for eviction was, thus, wrongly decreed by the court below.
5. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the landlord strived his best to support the finding of the court below on issue No. 1. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration.
6. Since the controversies on the finding on issue No. 1 relate to the applicability of the exemptions mentioned in Section 2(2) of the Act, it would be proper to re-produce it. It reads as under:
Section 2. Extent, commencement and application--(1) This Act extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan.
(2) Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of this Act shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions thereof shall extend to such areas in the State of Rajasthan and shall come into force therein with effect from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall apply
(a) to any premises belonging to the Central Government or the State of Government or a local authority;
(b) to any tenancy or other like relationship created by grant from the Central Government or the State Government in respect of premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government;
(c) the Devasthan premises managed and controlled by the State Government.
7. A bare reading of the proviso makes it abundantly clear that only these premises which belong the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or the Devasthan managed and controlled by the State Government etc. have been exempted from the operation of the Act. Thus, if the premises belong to the Central Government etc. are let out, the exemptions contained in the proviso will at once be attracted and the provisions of the Act will then not apply, But the converse, where a citizen lets out his premises to the Central Government etc., the exemptions contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act will not be applicable. Therefore, if a suit is brought by a citizen for eviction in respect of his premises, his suit will be governed by the provisions of the Act and eviction then can only take place if he is able to make out and prove any of the grounds of eviction enumerated in Section 13 of the Act.
8. Here in the instant case, the premises belonging to a citizen were let out by him to M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited. Therefore the exemptions contained in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the proviso are not applicable. The whole approach of the learned District Judge is, thus, erroneous and unsustainable.
9. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff could not controvert the legal position flowing from clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act. In fact, he could not support the view taken by the court below on any logic or reasoning. The suit for eviction, thus, was wrongly decreed.
10. In the result, the appeal of the tenant is partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated September 27, 1983 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction are set-aside. The plaintiff's suit, so far it relates to eviction, shall stand dismissed. The judgment and decree of the learned District Judge will stand modified in the manner indicated above. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.