Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 20.1.14 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Nagaur, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners herein, seeking rejection of the petition for eviction preferred by the respondent, stands rejected. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners under Sec. 9 and 18 of Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"). The premises in question, a shop, was let out by Shri Kamalchand Baid to the petitioners' father Shivprasad. The respondent has purchased the shop from Shri Kamalchand Baid by way of registered sale deed dt. 2.11.12. The respondent claims that since the petitioners herein were not engaged in business with their father during his lifetime, they do not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as set out in Section 2(i) of the Act and therefore, they are liable to be evicted from the premises in question. That apart, the eviction is sought on the ground that the tenants have already acquired vacant possession of premises adequate for their requirement.
(2.) THE petition is being contested by the petitioners by filing a reply thereto. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the petitioners have never paid rent either to Shri Kamalchand or Smt. Shanti Devi and therefore, there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It was further averred that Smt. Shanti Devi, the respondent herein, has admitted in the petition that no landlord and tenant relationship exists between her and the petitioners and therefore, the petition filed under the provisions of the Act, is not maintainable before the Rent Tribunal. The application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto taking the stand that the premises was occupied by late Shri Shivprasad as tenant and since the petitioners herein were not engaged in business with their father, they do not continue as tenant and are liable to be evicted. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that as per provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the petition relating to the dispute between landlord and tenant and matter connected therewith can only be heard and decided by the Rent Tribunal and the civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.
(3.) AFTER due consideration, the application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition.;