1. - The petitioner (landlord), Raisa Bano, has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2012 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, deciding preliminary issue of jurisdiction against the landlord and holding that the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the suit/application filed by the tenant for recovery of Rs. 1,06,862/- from the landlord, which was allegedly, spent by him for undertaking necessary repairs of the suit property in question.

2. The petitioner-landlord raised an objection that its a civil dispute between the parties arising under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and therefore, this not being a dispute within the realm of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the Rent Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide such issue.

3. Learned Rent Tribunal relying upon the language of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, which is quoted below, has held that the present dispute also essentially arises out of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant only; and therefore, even if it is for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,06,862/-, on account of alleged repairs carried out by the tenant in the suit premises, the application of tenant would fall within the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal. Section 18, including its proviso reads as under:

"Section 18. Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this Act extends only the Rent Tribunal and no Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto, filed under the provisions of this Act:

Provides that Rent Tribunal shall, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapter II and III of this Act do not apply, have due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 (Act No.4 of 1882) the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act No.9 of 1872) or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before a Civil Court by way of suit."

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner landlord, Mr. Shree Kant Verma, is that the Proviso to Section 18 (1) of the Act, says that the Rent Tribunal in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapter II and III of the Act do not apply, have due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other substantive law applicable to such matters.

5. Admittedly, Chapters II and III of the Act do not apply to the landlord and tenant in the present case. The requirement of the Proviso to Section 18 (1) f the Act is only to mandate that the Rent Tribunal shall in such cases, have due regard to the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1872 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other substantive law, applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied, had the dispute being brought before the Civil Court by way of suit. Section 18 (1) otherwise starting with a non-obstinate clause excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts and vests the jurisdiction to try the cases arising under this special law, namely, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 in the specially constituted Rent Tribunals only.

6. The said Proviso and main Section 18 (1) of the Act of 2001, therefore, includes within its compass, the disputes between the landlord and the tenant, including the incidental matters and even matters connected therewith as ancillary thereto. If at the root of the dispute is the relationship between the parties as that of being landlord and tenant, as defined in this Act, the jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded and special jurisdiction is vested in the Rent Tribunals, constituted under this law. The reference to Proviso to Section 18 (1) by the le