Sangeet Raj Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 20.11.2009 of the Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh, whereby an objection raised by the petitioner questioning the maintainability of the petition preferred by the respondent -Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited ('the Bank') under Sec. 6 & 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short -"the Act of 2001"), stands rejected. The respondent -Bank preferred a petition for revision of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the premises, a shop, in terms of provisions of Section 6 & 9 of the Act of 2001. Alternatively, it was prayed that if the provisions of Chapter II & III are found not applicable to the premises in question, the petition may be treated to be under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act of 1882").
(2.) THE petition is being contested on behalf of the petitioner herein, by filing a reply thereto. The petitioner raised an objection in terms that the petition preferred under the Act of 2001 and the Act of 1882 is not maintainable. It was contended that the averments made in the petition are absolutely vague and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. After due consideration, the Tribunal found that by virtue of provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act of 2001, Chapter II & III or the Act do not apply to the premises let out by the respondent -bank to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal observed that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3, by virtue of provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the dispute between the landlord and tenant has to be determined by the Tribunal and therefore, the petition can be treated to be a petition in terms of provisions of the Act of 1882. Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the respondent -bank to amend the petition keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 1882. Hence, this petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the petition preferred by the respondent -bank, treating it to be a petition in terms of provisions of the Act of 1882. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under the Act of 1882 inasmuch as, the suit thereunder can only be tried by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that without there being prayer, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to direct that the respondent -bank may amend the petition keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 1882. Learned counsel submitted that a petition preferred in the format prescribed under the Act cannot be treated to be a petition under the provisions of the Act of 1882.;