The main legal point established is that the Tribunal should consider material propositions dealing with facts and law, such as the plea of the bar of principles of res judicata, and frame necessary issues for consideration.

( 1 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, suffice is to notice for the purpose of this writ petition that the petitioner-tenant is facing a petition for his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord and on the ground of the petitioner having acquired alternative adequate premises. The petitioner by filing reply to the said eviction petition has, inter alia, averred that the landlord in relation to the same tenancy had earlier taken up litigation in Civil Suit No. 281/2002 raising ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement and then had withdrawn the same; and that thereafter, the landlord adopted proceedings under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Rent Control act, 2001 (the Act) seeking immediate recovery of possession in eviction petition numbered 93/2003 that was rejected by the rent Tribunal and an appeal submitted to the Appellate Rent tribunal (Appeal No. 33/2004) was also withdrawn without any permission for filing a fresh petition. With reference to these facts the present petitioner while defending the eviction petition has submitted that its trial is barred by the principles of res judicata. A rejoinder has been submitted by the landlord refuting the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE learned Rent Tribunal has proceeded to frame the following issues on 12. 12. 2005:-The petitioner moved an application (Annex. 4) with reference to his plea that the trial is barred by the principles of res judicata and submitted that an issue to that effect is required to be framed. The landlord submitted a reply (Annex. 5) to the application with the submissions that earlier suit No. 281/2002 was withdrawn after coming into force of the new Rent Control Act with permission to file afresh and, therefore, the said suit was not decided. Regarding the petition submitted under Section 10 of the Act, the landlord submitted that though the Tribunal found him suffering from permanent disablement but did not grant relief as the premises in question were held to be of commercial use and, hence he withdrew the said proceedings at appellate stage and then filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Act and, therefore, the same is not barred by the principles of res judicata.

( 3 ) BY way of the impugned order dated 25. 01. 2006 (Annex. 8) the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur has proceeded to reject the application submitted by the petitioner with the observations that earlier suit proceedings were withdrawn and, therefore, they do not answer to the description of final decision; and that earlier petition under Section 10 (3) of the act was not allowed because the premises were taken to be commercial one and the said petition was withdrawn in appeal and the landlord has filed fresh eviction petition raising the grounds under Section 9 (i) and 9 (j) of the Act which were not taken in the earlier petition and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner was not maintainable. Hence this writ petition.

( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is of opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Tribunal at the stage of decision of the application moved by the petitioner-tenant was not as such concerned with merits of the plea raised by the petitionertenant; and the only relevant question was as to whether an issue with reference to the objection taken by the petitioner was required to be framed or not? However, the Tribunal has proceeded to cursorily deal with the merits of the plea without dilating upon the pleadings in the earlier litigations and the orders passed therein and without examining the effect of withdrawal of earlier suit; then filing of application under Section 10 of the Act 2001; then its withdrawal; and then filing of the present petition. The plea as taken by the tenant whether ultimately sustains itself or not is a matter entirely different, but the p