Point of Law: Since the Rent Tribunals have been given power to deal with incidental matters relating to dispute between landlord and tenant also, the case in hand, where suit for possession has been filed before the civil court, is also covered by the said proviso to Section 18 (1) of the Act and could be held to be rightly maintainable before the Rent Tribunal

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 4.3.2020 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Udaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment and certificate for recovery of possession dated 28.4.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short ‘the Rent Tribunal’) in Case No.378/2014, which is also under challenge.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 3 (III) (b) read with Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises located at Flat No.302, Third Floor, Oasis Park, 40 Ambavgarh, Udaipur (for short ‘the rented premises’). As per the eviction petition, the rented premises was let out to the petitioner initially on 6.10.2008 for a period of one year through a rent deed. The said tenancy was extended up to 2011 through rent deeds for a period of one year each and lastly the rented premises was let out to the petitioner for a period of six months through rend deed dated 14.6.2012 whereby, the tenancy was started from 6.5.2012 and was supposed to end on 5.11.2013. It is also mentioned that the rented premises was let out to the petitioner at a rent of Rs.7500/- per month plus Rs.800/- per month as society charges and he was supposed to make payment of the electricity and water bills.

3. It is contended by applicant-respondent that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’), however, despite service of notice, the petitioner has not evicted the premises in question and, therefore, the eviction petition may be allowed and the petitioner be evicted from the rented premises.

4. Reply to the eviction petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein, he has objected about the maintainability of the eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal. It was urged that the respondent can only file a civil suit for the purpose of eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises. It was further urged that the rented premises was let out to the petitioner permanently on monthly rent and not for the period of one year. It was also urged that as a matter of fact, the respondent has entered into an oral agreement to sale the rented premises to the petitioner and in lieu of that he has paid rupees one lakh in advance, but later on, the respondent has not executed the sale deed in his favour. Certain other objections regarding the rent deeds were also raised by the petitioner.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Tribunal has framed as many as three issues, which are reproduced hereunder :-

^^1- vk;k izR;FkhZ us vthZnkj ls fookfnr ifjlj 7]500@& :i;k izfrekg fdjk;k jkf'k ,oa 800@& :i;k lkslk;Vh pktZ djus dh 'krZ ds lkFk fdjk;s ij izkIr fd;k ,oa blh gSfl;r ls ifjlj esa jgokl dj jgk gS\ ------ vthZnkj

2- vk;k vthZnkj us /kkjk 106 Vh-ih- ,DV ds rgr uksfVl nsdj izR;FkhZ dh fdjk;snkjh lekIr dj nh gS\ ------vthZnkj

3- vk;k bl vf/kdj.k dks ;g izdj.k lquus dk {kS=kf/kdkj ugha gS\^^

6. After taking into consideration the documentary as well as the ocular evidence, the Rent Tribunal has decided issue Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent and has passed the judgment and certificate for recovery of possession on 28.4.2017. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 4.3.2020.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly challenged the findings of Rent Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal in respect of issue No.3. It is argued that the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal have erred in deciding the issue No.3 in favour of the respon