1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 13.9.07 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner , whereby applications dated 17.10.06 and 26.9.06, preferred by the petitioner landlord, seeking leave to amend the original application and prayer for review of order dated 13.9.06, declining framing of an additional issue, have been rejected.

2. The brief facts relevant to the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner preferred a suit (No.366/99) for eviction of the respondent from the premises in question inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent in terms of Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950(in short "the Act of 1950"hereinafter) before the Additional Civil Judge(J.D.) No.3, Bikaner. The amount of rent payable was provisionally determined by the learned trial court in terms of Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950,vide order dated 6.3.03. However, after coming into force of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001( in short "the Act of 2001" hereinafter), on 25.9.03, the suit was withdrawn by the petitioner in terms of Section 32 (3) of the Act of 2001 with liberty to file a petition under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2001.

3. On 22.12.2003, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 9(1) of the Act of 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner for eviction of the respondent from the shop in question on various grounds but, not on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent has filed a reply to the petition and the suit is being contested by him. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and parties have led their evidence.

4. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application under Sections 21(3)/32(1)(b) of the Act of 2001 read with Order 14 Rules 1, 3, 5 and Section 151 CPC, praying for framing of an additional issue in the following terms:-

"vk;k izfroknh fnukad 25-9-2003 mijkar fdjk;k tek u djokus ij fMQkWYVj gks x;k gSA"
The application was preferred on the ground that the respondent has admitted in his statement during the trial that he has not paid the rent of the premises after 25th September, 2003. According to the petitioner, even after coming into force of the Act of 2001, the rights accrued under the Act of 1950 are not extinguished and on account of non payment of rent, the respondent has become defaulter, therefore, in terms of Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950, his defence against eviction deserves to be struck out. The learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that the petitioner having withdrawn the suit preferred under the provisions of the Act of 1950 after coming into force of the Act of 2001 , he cannot claim benefit said to have been accrued on account of any order passed in the earlier suit. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 13.9.06. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application dated 26.9.06 for review of order dated 13.9.06, which stands rejected vide impugned order dated 13.9.07.During the pendency of the application for review of order dated 13.9.06, the petitioner preferred yet another application dated 17.10.06 for amendment of the rent application, seeking leave to incorporate an additional ground for eviction of the respondent from the premises in question, on the strength of order dated 6.3.03 passed in the earlier suit. According to the petitioner since, the respondent has made default in payment of rent determined provisionally u/s 13(3) of the Act of 1950 in the earlier suit, therefore, in terms of Section 13(5) , the defence of the tenant against the eviction deserves to be struck out.After due consideration, the learned Tribunal found that on the basis of non payment of the rent determined provisionally under the provisions of the Act of 1950,the defence of the respondent against the eviction in proceedings under the Act of 2001 cannot be struck out. The l