The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'premises' under the Rent Control Act, 2001 and its application to rooms in a hotel building.

1. - None appears for Mr. Yogesh Kalla, applicant, though name of Mr. B.V. Thanvi, Advocate is shown in the cause list in his behalf.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant against the order dtd 6.4.2009 passed by the Rent Tribunal, jodhpur in Petition No. 227 of 2009, Yogesh Kalla v. Bhup Singh & Ors. , whereby the application filed by the petitioner tinder Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was rejected.

3. The petitioner Bhup Singh S/o Sh. Mani Ram had purchased a building known as Gopi Krishna Hotel and Annpurna Restaurant, situated at Sojati Gate from Rajasthan Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 in an auction held by the RFC upon default in payment of loan by respondent No. 3-Gopit Kishan Purohit, who was earlier the owner of the DNJ . Pg. 172 . 25 6.2013 said property, but upon default in payment of loan, the possession was taken over by the RFC and sold in open auction in favour of auction purchaser, the present writ petitioner Bhup Singh. These facts being not in dispute when the respondent No. 2 Yogesh Kalla-applicant-tenant approached the Rent Tribunal by way of Petition No. 227/2008 seeking injunction against the purchaser-owner of the property, Sh. Bhup Singh that he may not be dispossessed from the portion of said building in which he claimed that he was tenant of original owner Sh. Gopi Kishan Purohit in rooms No. 17, 18 and 19 of the said hotel building in which he was running his business of "Vishal Shorthand Coaching Centre" and therefore, he may not be dispossessed by the purchaser of property Bhup Singh without adopting the due process of law for eviction.

4. The defendant-non-applicant-purchaser of property Sh. Bhup Singh filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., before the Rent Tribunal claiming that the said hotel building in which hotel was running and which upon default in repayment of loan by the owner (Gopi Kishan Purohit) against RFC, the same was sold in auction to the present petitioner, was not even covered by the definition of "Premises" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, such hotel building being specifically excluded from the said definition of "premises", the Rent Control Act, 2001 did not apply to the facts of the present case, no such suit could be filed and maintained before the Rent Tribunal by the applicant Yogesh Kalla under the said Rent Control Act, 2001.

5. By the impugned order dated 6.4.2009, the learned Rent Tribunal has rejected the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and has held the suit maintainable before it. Aggrieved by the same, the purchaser owner of the property Bhup Singh has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nitish Bagri for Mr. Sajjan Singh submitted that in view of clear exclusion of hotel buildings from the definition of "premises" as defined in Section 2(f)(iv) of the Act, the injunction suit filed by Yogesh Kalla was not maintainable and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and entertaining such injunction suit.

7. None has appeared on behalf of the applicant Yogesh Kalla despite service though the name of Mr. B.V. Thanvi, Advocate has appeared in the cause list.

8. Mr. Arpit Bhoot, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. Gopi Kishan Purohit does not dispute the fact that the said building was sold in open auction under Section 29 of the SFC Act and he is representing the earlier owner Sh. Gopi Kishan Purohit only and not Yogesh Kalla.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nitish Bagri, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Rent Tribunal has fallen into error of law in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., in the present case. The said building known as Annpurna Restaurant and Gopikrishna Hotel was set up as