Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff non -petitioner filed a suit foreviction against petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent ControlAct, 2001. The defendant petitioner submitted an application under Order 7R.11 C.P.C. and prayed that since no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has beenserved by the plaintiff upon the Union of India, as required by the mandatoryprovisions of law, therefore, petition filed by the non -petitioner for evictionof the petitioners non -applicants before the Tribunal deserves to be rejected. The Tribunal vide order dt. 18.09.2006 after relying upon judgment of theBombay High Court, 2006 AIH 2024 Food Corporation of India v. Union of India and Anr. held that petition filed under Rent Control Act is not governedby the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and it is not mandatory tofollow the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore,the petition filed by the non -petitioner cannot be rejected for want of noticeunder Section 80 C.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that, orderpassed by the Tribunal is not a speaking order. According to learned counselfor the petitioner, the petition under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent ControlAct, 2001, is nothing but a suit in as much as that by this petition the plaintiffis seeking to enforce his right against the tenant for tenant s eviction and forgetting possession. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon thedefinition of suit given in Law Lexicon in view of the fact that no definitionof suit has been given under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner even as per first provisoof sub Section (1) of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 itself it is clear that by thesame Act it has been provided that Rent Tribunal shall decide petition filedunder provisions of the Act of 2001 and where Chapters II and III of the Actdo not apply shall have due regard to the provisions of Transfer of PropertiesAct, 1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other substantive lawapplicable to subject matter in the same manner in which such law can havebeen applied. It is specifically provided that for this purpose the Tribunalshall treat the suit as though it had been brought before the Civil Court byway of suit. It is also submitted that the exclusion from applicability of Section80 C.P.C. is not provided by any statutory provision of law under the Act of2001 and therefore, also the applicability of Section 80 C.P.C. cannot beexcluded. Not only this but it is specifically provided under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 that though the Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedurelaid down by C.P.C. but at the same time it is also provided in the same Sub -section (3) of Section 23 the Rent Act that the Tribunal as well as AppellateRent Tribunal shall be guided by principles of natural justice and shall havepower to regulate their own procedure and further for the purpose ofdeciding their functions under the Act of 2001 they shall have same powersas the Civil Court has under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the totalityof facts and provisions made under the Act of 2001 the applicability of Codeof Civil Procedure has not been excluded specifically, may it has been provided 3445 B.R.T.F. and Anr. v. Padmawati Arts Creation, 2007 (2) WLNthat Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The requirement of principles of natural justice hasbeen made statutorily applicable while deciding the petition under the Act of 2001; and, applicability of substantive laws has been made applicable under Section 18 of the Act of 2001. Therefore, the Court below has committed errorof law in dismissing the petitioners application filed under Order 7 R.11C.P.C.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for non -petitioner plaintiff vehemently submitted thatthe Tribunal is not a Civil Court nor petition filed under the Act of 2001 is asuit, therefore, Section 80 C.P.C. cannot be applied because of the reasonthat Section 80 C.P.C., itself provides that no "suit" can be instituted againstthe Government or Public Officer without serving a notice under Section 80C.P.C. and Section 80 C.P.C. no where provides the said provisions shallapply to even petition submitted in the Tribunal. It is also submitted thatthough in a different matter Bombay High Court, in case of Food Corporation of India v. Union of India and Anr., 2006 AIH 2024 held that the suit which are filed in a ordinary Civil Court are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and are the suits and Suit would not include proceedings which are filed before the Tribunal or other authorities constituted under special enactments where provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not strictlymade applicable.;