DINESH MEHTA, J. - (1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 31/2016 (06/2016) whereby, the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 9/2011 (899/2014), allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent, has been affirmed.
(2.) At the time of filing the present second appeal, the appellant has proposed following substantial questions of law and raised grounds relating to these questions. "(i) Whether the learned appellate court as well as learned Trial court have failed to interpret and apply the mandate of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 properly ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has right to terminate tenancy when the title of the suit premises shop has been challenged before the competent court even before the institution of the present suit ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has right to receive rent and use and occupation charges from the defendant when the suit of cancellation of sale deed dated 06-08-2010 has been submitted by legal heirs of late Shri Mohanlal even before the institution of this suit ? (iv) Whether the learned Appellate Court as well as learned Trial Court has misread and misunderstood the document notice Exb-5 ? (v) Whether the learned trial court has committed serious error of law while initiating ex-parte proceedings against the defendant ? (vi) Whether the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while not issuing fresh notice to defendant prior to initiating ex-parte proceedings against the defendant, specifically when defendant's counsel pleaded "No Instruction" ? (vii) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has made error of law while deciding the issue no. 5 relying on the principle "pleadings admitted if not specifically denied" when no documentary evidence has been produced showing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?"
(3.) Mr. Siddharth Tatiya, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that after promulgation of the Rent Control Act, 2001 and its applicability in Municipal Area, Balotra, the Civil Court has ceased to have jurisdiction to try, decide and hear the suits in relation to the recovery of possession, eviction, recovery of rent etc. of rented premises. He placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision dated 26.10.2017 passed by this Court, in support of his contention.;