The Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for declaration, eviction & recovery of possession and permanent injunction, even if the suit pertains to the eviction of a tenant.

Vineet Kothari, J.

The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-defendant in a suit for declaration, eviction & recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Jodhpur District in Case No.133/2014 (184/2012) "Rajendra Praasad v. Vinod & Ors." by which, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. By the impugned order dated 27.07.2015, the learned Trial Court had rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff essentially seeking declaration of his rights on the basis of will dated 01.06.1978 is triable by the Civil Court. The learned Trial Court has also rejected the contention of the defendant that the suit is barred by Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 according to which the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases in respect of the landlord and tenant.

3. The reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge for rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under:-

^^gLrxr izdj.k esa okni= ds voyksdu ls gkykafd oknh }kjk pkgs x;s vuqrks"k la[;k 2 esa mlds }kjk oknxzLr nqdku la[;k 3 esa izfroknh la[;k 1 fdjk;snkj dks csn[ky dj dCtk oknh dks fnykus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS o blh izdkj vuqrks"k la[;k 4 bl vk'k; dh vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k oknh dks fnykus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS fd oknxzLr nqdku la[;k 3 dk cdk;k fdjk;k rFkk ekg ds ekg fdjk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 oknh dks vnk djsa] ysfdu lEiw.kZ okni= ds voyksdu ls oknh dks izfroknh la[;k 1 }kjk fdjk;k vnk fd;k tk jgk gS ;k vHkh fdjk;k vnk fd;k x;k gS] bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls oknh o izfroknh la[;k 1 ds e/; edku ekfyd o fdjk;snkj dk laca/k LFkkfir gksuk okni= ds voyksdu ls n`f"Vxkspj ugha gksrk gS o blh vk/kkj ijoknh }kjk iwoZ esa U;k;ky; fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kdj.k] tks/kiqj ds le{k izLrqr ;kfpdk fnukad 11-05-2011 dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA

gLrxr okn esa okni= ds voyksdu ls oknh us eq[; vuqrks"k oknxzLr nqdku la[;k 3 ds gd o ekfydkuk gd oknh ds i{k esa olh;rukek fnukad 01-06-1978 ds vuqlkj ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk ,oa oknxzLr nqdku dks izfroknh ;k vU; fdlh O;fDr dks ugha cspus dk ?kks"k.kkRed ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkK dk vuqrks"k pkgk gS rFkk fooknxzLr nqdku ds ekfydkuk gd ,oa vfLrRo ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vf/kdkj flfoy U;k;ky; dks gh gSA LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vf/kdkj fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kdj.k dks izkIr ugha gSA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk Hkh vko';d gS fd oknh }kjk izLrqr okni= esa mfYy[kr dFku dk izfroknh la[;k 3 ,oa 4 }kjk fnukad 07-07-2012 o izfroknh la[;k 2 }kjk fnukad 22-11-2012 dks is'k fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftlls gLrxr okn ds eq[; fook|d iz'uksa dk fu/kkZj.k fook|d fojfpr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ mHk; i{kdkjku~ dh lk{; ys[kc) fd;s tkus ds ckn gh fd;k tkuk izdj.k ds U;k;laxr fuLrkj.k ds fy;s fof/klEer gSA vr% izfroknh la[;k 1 o 3 }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij vUrxZr vkns'k VII, fu;e 11 rFkk vkns'k VII, fu;e 11 o /kkjk 11 lifBr /kkjk 151 Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr ugha gksus ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs is'k djus tokc nkok izfroknh la[;k 1 o ,Mfe'ku fMuk; o dk;eh rufd;kr gsrq fnukad 10-07-2015 dks is'k gksA

Sd/-

flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa U;kf;d eftLVs~V

tks/kiqj ftykA**

4. The learned counsel, Mr. A.R. Nikub, appearing for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the principles of res judicata because the plaintiff has earlier also filed a suit in respect of the same property before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jodhpur. The learned counsel also submitted that since the matter pertains to the eviction of the defendant which was covered un