- (1.) This civil review petition has been preferred by appellant Poonam Singh in respect of the judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in SB Civil First Appeal No.302/2006 whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellant/ petitioner Poonam Singh.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner has contended that learned trial Court was not the Rent Tribunal but a civil Court, which was lacking in jurisdiction to pass the eviction decree against the appellant in the status of tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also advanced his arguments on the strength of Section 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and has taken the plea that not a single ground for eviction was pleaded in the suit for which the eviction decree could have been passed. He has also placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case of Smt. Pushpa Sharma Vs. Gopal Lal Rawat, 1986 AIR(Raj) 187. He has submitted that the judgment under review has not taken into consideration these aspects, hence, it is required to be reviewed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has countered these arguments and has submitted that the appellant petitioner cannot be allowed to take two contrary stands together. Civil Suit No.32/99 was filed by the petitioner for cancellation of 'patta' issued by UIT, Bikaner in favour of respondent Mohd. Bax and also for restraining him from interfering in possession of the appellant over the disputed property. Judgment came to be passed on 12.4.2006 by learned trial Court i.e. Addl. District Judge No.2, Bikaner whereby the suit was dismissed and the counter claim preferred by the defendant No.2 - respondent Mohd. Bax was allowed and appellant Poonam Singh was ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to defendant No.2 along with the payment of mesne profit. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this suit was filed by Poonam Singh pretending him to be the owner of disputed property. The trial Court came to the conclusion that no satisfactory evidence regarding the title and ownership could be produced by the plaintiff Poonam Singh in respect of the disputed property and based on the facts mentioned in the counter claim, Poonam Singh was found to be tenant of Mohd. Bax on that property. In these circumstances, it is apparently clear that the suit filed by Poonam Singh for cancellation of 'patta' and injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and on the appeal having been preferred by him against this judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the judgment on 22.01.2016, rejecting the appeal.;