- (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta City, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Ram Avatar filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the petition -defendant after complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the T.P. Act'); an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2011, inter alia, with the averments that earlier an application was filed under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC on 02.08.2004, the said application was not decided on merits and was dismissed as not pressed on 08.04.2005; the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'), which came into force on 25.02.2003 and where after Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 ('the Act of 2005') came into force on 22.02.2006 and the Act of 2001 was made applicable to all Municipalities and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act of 2001 is not maintainable; it was also claimed in the application that suit for enhancement of rent is maintainable only under provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950') and as there is no provision in the T.P. Act to increase the rent, the suit was liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the trial court vide its order dated 24.09.2012 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, holding that despite coming into force of the Act of 2005 w.e.f. 22.02.2006, the Act of 2001 was not applicable to Merta City and as the suit was filed after the repeal of the Act of 1950, the same could have been filed under provisions of the T.P. Act.
(3.) IT was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare reading of provisions of Section 1(2) of the Act of 2001, Section 2 of the Act of 2005 and the Notification dated 22.02.2006 it is apparent that the provisions of the Act of 2001 came into force and was applicable to Merta City w.e.f. 22.02.2006 and in view of provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, it is only the Rent Tribunal and not the Civil Courts, who have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and, consequently, the trial court was bound to allow the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that if the Act of 2001 is not applicable to Merta City, then in that case the suit could have been filed only with reference to provisions of the Act of 1950 and the suit under the T.P. Act was not maintainable.;