- (1.) BOTH the learned counsel for the parties submit at bar that the controversy involved in the present revision petition is covered by a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Uma Shanker Vs. Seth Sugan Chand Charitable Trust Building (SBCRP No.35/2011, decided on 26.08.2011), and the dispute arising in the present case would fall within the domain and jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal as per Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001; and consequently the rejection of the objections of the landlord-petitioner-defendant before this Court, which have wrongly been rejected, deserves to be interfered with.
(2.) THIS Courtr in the case of Uma Shanker (supra), has held as under: "5. Having heard the learned counsels at some legnth and upon perusal of provisions of the Act of 2001 and the case laws cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that in view of proviso to Section 18 (1) and Section 18 (3) of the Act, it is clear that even though a Trust, like the present respondent, to whom Chapter II and III of the said Act of 2001 do not apply, it can approach the Rent Tribunal for seeking eviction of a tenant or even a trespasser. Section 18 of the Act reads as under: - "18. 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, 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 the Act: Provided that Rent Tribunal shall, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained 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 Unauthorized 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." 6. Since the Rent Tribunals have been given power to deal with incidental matters relating to dispute between landlord and tenant also, the case in hand, where suit for possession has been filed before the civil court, is also covered by the said proviso to Section 18 (1) of the Act and could be held to be rightly maintainable before the Rent Tribunal. There is also considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner defendant that the plaintiff, on the other hand, would get better remedy in view of specialized Tribunal, quicker time frame for getting the petition tried rather than a civil court. 7. THIS Court in Gyaneshwar Bhati's case (supra) has held that where the resolution of the general body of the Society, to which Chapter II and III do not apply, was sought to be challenged and the effect of that resolution was to evict the tenant of the Society, the same resolution which was challenged in the civil court by way of suit was not maintainable and petition under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 would be the remedy and plaintiff was relegated to approach the Rent Tribunal. 8. In the similar circumstances, another coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Nalini Mehta (supra) held that provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has got an absolute overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force in relation to the areas to which the Act applies and in such areas only the Rent Tribunal and no civil court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to the disputes between landlord and tenant. 9. In view of these judgments and clear provisions of the Act of 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 10. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27/1/2011 is set aside. Civil Suit No.151/2009 (Seth Sugan Chand Charitable Trust vs. Uma Shanker) is dismissed as not maintainable in that civil court. The plaintiff will, however, hav the liberty to approach the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar with appropriate eviction petition, which shall be tried and decided in accordance with provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2001. No costs." In view of aforesaid decision, the impugned order dated 04.02.2011 deserves to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The possession of the suit property is already stated to be with the petitioner-landlord. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.02.2011 is set aside. No costs.;