DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the order impugned is an order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby petitioner's amendment application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the written statement in wake of the applicability of the Rent Control Act, 2001, has been rejected.
(2.) The basic question involved in the present writ petitions has recently been decided by the Divison Bench of this Court at Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 26.10.2017, rendered in batch of petitions led by D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2015 titled as "K. Ramnarayan v. Shri Pukhraj" , holding as under:- "43. The inescapable conclusion emerging from the conclusion delineated above is that the benefit of the mandate of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 would have to be extended even in those class of cases where a decree has already been passed by the civil court and the same has been contested by preferring an appeal. 44. The reference is accordingly answered in terms of para 31 and 43 above. Meaning thereby, once the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was extended to the municipal areas, the Civil Courts would lose jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. No tenant could be evicted by a Civil Court. The eviction had to be as per the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and on the grounds specified in Section 9 thereof. Even where decrees of ejectment had been passed by the Civil Courts and matters were pending consideration in appeal, the civil proceedings would lapse."
(3.) In view of the above enunciation by the Division Bench, the present writ petition is allowed. The amendment application filed by the petitioner stands allowed. Order impugned passed by the Civil Court, holding that it continues to have the jurisdiction to try the suit in question, despite applicability of Rent Control Act, is quashed and set aside.;