ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/ non-applicant (for short ‘the petitioner’) challenging the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer (for short ‘the court below’) in Original Application No.34/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 & 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit No.66/2013 for specific performance of agreement/ contract and permanent injunction relating to immovable property, which was earlier on rent. The respondent/non-applicant (for short ‘the respondent’) filed a counter claim. He further submitted that after filing the counter claim, the respondent filed Original Application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) before the court below with respect to the same property for which the petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance. He also submitted that on receiving the notice of the rent application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 10 and 151 CPC specifically stating that the relief sought for by the respondent in the rent application is the same which has been sought by him in the counter claim. He submitted that the court below without appreciating the complete material available on the record and the provisions of law, dismissed the said application vide order dated 16.03.2021.

In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Fajal Ahmed Vs. Syed Sultan Ahmed, reported in 2018(3) Civil Court Cases 389 (M.P.), delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

3. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the counter claim was filed by the respondent on the basis of termination of the tenancy after serving the legal notice dated 21.01.2013 for termination of tenancy w.e.f. 28.02.2013. He further submitted that the fresh rent application was filed by the petitioner on the grounds as provided under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. He submitted that since the counter claim and the fresh rent application both, are based on different grounds, and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 CPC will not be applicable in the matter.

In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. Om Prakash Khandaria Vs. Navratan Mal & Ors., reported in 2013 3 RLW (Raj.) 2089 (delivered by learned Single Judge, Principal Seat at Jodhpur);

2. Chetna Dadhich Vs. Mehrunisa, reported in (2008) 1 RLW (Raj.) 127 (delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court);

3. Auto Center Vs. Shreekant, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (Raj.) 630 (delivered by learned Single Judge, Principal Seat at Jodhpur); and

4. the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramkishan & Ors. Vs. Bajranglal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2103/2007).

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties.

5. The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of agreement/ contract and permanent injunction stating that he purchased the property in question through an agreement. The respondent (defendant therein) submitted the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and also specifically stated in paragraph 24 of the counter claim that they have terminated the tenancy by issuing the legal notice dated 21.01.2013 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 28.02.2013 and prayed in the counter claim as under:-

^^vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd oknh lfefr dk okn O;; lfgr fujLr djrs gq, izfroknh la[;k 1 ds i{k esa pj.k la[;k 23 esa of.kZr ,aoe layXu ekufp= esa gjs jax ls nf’kZr Hkkx ls oknh lfefr dks fu"dkflr djus ,aoe mldk vkf/kiR; izfroknh la[;k 1 dks fnykus] : 38]000@& fdjk;k rFkk : 1]00]000 e/;orhZ ykHk dh fMdzh O;; lfgr ikfjr dh tk;sA izfrnkok izLrqr djus dh rkfj[k ls iz'uxr ifjlj dk vkf/kiR; feyus rd : 2