Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Tribunal to hear and decide disputes between landlord and tenant, including matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by defendant Parshav Nath Jain Mandir Trust being aggrieved by the order dated 12-1-2011, whereby, the learned trial Court has rejected its application under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C. for rejecting the civil suit filed by the plaintiff tenant Avtar Singh seeking specific performance of the compromise entered into between these two parties in an earlier eviction suit filed by the defendant Trust as landlord against the present plaintiff, who was defendant tenant in that suit.

2. In eviction suit No.113/2005 filed before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, a compromise was arrived at between the parties that the defendant tenant would handover the possession of the plot of land in his possession as tenant measuring 45’ * 65’ to the plaintiff landlord and in turn after construction of shop measuring 12’ * 25’ on the portion of said plot shall be given back to the defendant tenant on the tenancy of Rs. 200/- per month, which rent would be subject to increase in accordance with the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2001. Accordingly, the said suit No. 113/2005 (Parshav Nath Jain Mandir Trust v. Avatra Singh) was disposed of by the learned Trial Court on 7-7-2005.

3. The present suit No.184/2006 was filed by the plaintiff Avtar Singh before the learned trial Court with the case that instead of shop measuring 12’ * 25’ with mezzanine floor, the defendant landlord has given him possession of only shop measuring 10’ * 20’ and, therefore, the defendant Trust should handover the possession of remaining area so that compromise decree dated 7-7-2005 passed in the earlier eviction suit may be fully and substantially performed by the defendant Public Trust.

4. In the said subsequent suit No.184/2006, the defendant landlord filed an application under O.7. R. 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the suit inter alia on two grounds that said civil suit was barred by law in view of S.18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 since no civil Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matter connected therewith and ancillary thereto and only the Rent Tribunal constituted under the said Act of 2001 has the exclusive jurisdiction. Another ground taken in the application under O.7.R.11.

C.P.C. was that the suit filed for specific performance is beyond the period of limitation of six months prescribed under Section 6 of the Specific relief Act, 1963.

5. The learned trial Court has rejected the said application under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C. by the impugned order dated 12-1-2011 and being aggrieved of the same, the defendant Trust has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

6. Mr. J.K. Ranga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner defendant submitted that in view of the non obstante clause of S.18(1) of the Rent Control Act, the present suit purportedly filed for specific performance of the agreement, which is actually noting but execution of earlier compromise decree, is barred by law and, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application under O.7.R.11, C.P.C. He further submitted that the present dispute of purportedly handing over lesser area of shop to the tenant under the earlier compromise decree dated 7-7-2005 is nothing but a dispute between the parties as landlord and tenant for which the exclusive jurisdiction lies before the Rent Tribunal and no civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to hear and decide such petition relating to dispute between the landlord and tenant. In the alternative, he submitted that the suit filed for specific performance of said compromise decree s an agreement is beyond the period of limitation of six months prescribed under S.6(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and consequently, the suit itself is ex-facie barred and does not deserve to be tried by the learned trial Court.

7. On the other hand, Mr. R. S. Thanvi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi submitted t