POINT OF LAW: Court can always lift such veil and see real purpose of filing of suit. Section 18 of the Rent Control Act of 2001 admittedly bars the jurisdiction of any Civil Court in the matters relating to tenancy and even ancillary matters are liable to be decided by the Rent Tribunal.

ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition lays challenge to an order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rent Tribunal’).

2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass; which are noted hereinbelow :

(i) The respondent – landlord demised the property situated at S-10 Janta Colony, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘demised property’) on 11 years of lease w.e.f. 01.01.2009.

(ii) On completion of lease period, the respondent – landlord issued a notice dated 04.02.2020, requiring the tenant – petitioner to hand over the possession.

(iii) When the tenant (petitioner herein) did not hand over the possession of the demised property, the landlord (respondent herein) filed an original application under section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2001’) before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised property inter alia stating that the period of lease has expired.

(iv) The petitioner filed an application on 05.04.2021 under section 18 of the Act of 2001 and contended that petition in question is not maintainable, as the ground on which the respondent has sought eviction does not fall in any of the contingencies/grounds mentioned in section 9 or other provisions of the Act of 2001.

(v) Learned Member of the Tribunal rejected petitioner’s aforesaid application vide its order dated 11.08.2021 inter alia observing that there exists a clear relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and non-applicant and the issue of the jurisdiction as raised by the tenant is not required to be decided at that stage.

3. Impugning the order dated 11.08.2021, Ms. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the Rent Tribunal has erred in rejecting petitioner’s application, which raised fundamental question of jurisdiction.

4. She submitted that it was required of the Rent Tribunal to have decided petitioner’s application on its merit else; it has resulted in failure of justice, as the original application is found to be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction alone. She submitted that the Tribunal was not legally justified in refusing to delve upon the question of jurisdiction by observing that the same is not required to be decided at this stage.

5. Learned counsel argued that section 9 of the Act of 2001, which begins with non-obstante clause, is very categorical and accordingly the Rent Tribunal cannot order eviction of a tenant unless it has recorded a satisfaction that the case filed by the landlord falls within the contingencies mentioned in Clauses (a) to (m) of section 9 of the Act of 2001.

6. She read all the clauses of section 9 of the Act of 2001 to point out that the ground for which the respondent – landlord has filed the eviction petition does not fall in any of the contingencies/grounds mentioned in section 9 of the Act of 2001; she added that it rather does not fall in any of the provisions of the Act of 2001 and hence, the petition cannot lie before the Rent Tribunal. The respondent – landlord, if advised, can maintain a suit before the Civil Court, she submitted.

7. Mr. Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently submitted that the contentions raised in the petition have no substance in the eye of law and the same have been raised only with a view to protract the eviction proceedings.

8. Inviting Court’s attention towards section 18 of the Act of 2001, learned counsel argued that there is a clear and complete exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts, hence, no dispute between a landlord and a tenant can be tried by a Civil Court.

9. He contended that true it is, that the respondent’s case does not fall in any of the contingencies mentioned in section 9 of the Act of 2001, but the proviso to section 18 of the Act of 2001 which clearly stipulates that in cases where Chapter II and III do not apply, the Tribunal shall have due regard