IMPORTANT POINT
The landlord and tenant relationship is established when rent is received, and the question of ownership is not required to be determined in eviction cases under the Act of 2001.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Fresh’ Category but on the joint request of both the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :

“1. The impugned order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-1) passed by the Learned Trial Court may kindly be quashed and set aside;

2. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the Petitioners."

3. The respondents had preferred a rent petition under Section 9 the Rent Control Petition, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2001’). In response to the same, the Petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter to referred to as ‘CPC’) for the rejection of the Plaint, on the ground that the respondents are not the owner and landlord of the property, (which is Araji No. 429, wrongly mentioned as 490), instead it is owned by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘UIT’).

4. In addition to this, the petitioners also filed an application to bring certain documents on record, which include the detail of land record, to which the respondents filed a reply. After hearing submissions from both the parties, the learned Rent Tribunal rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-1).

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-1), the petitioners preferred this Writ Petition.

6. Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondents have no locus standi to prefer the rent petition since the property in dispute is owned by the UIT, and thus belongs to the State. Thus, application filed by the respondents is not maintainable by virtue of Section 3(c)(i) of the Act. The relevant Section has been reproduced as under :

“3. Chapter II and III not to apply to certain premises and tenancies.- Nothing Contained in Chapter II and III of this Act shall apply,-

xxxx

(c) rupees two thousand or more, in case of premises let out at places situated in other municipal areas. to which this Act extends for the time being;

(i) to any premises belonging to or let out by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority;

xxxx”

7. Learned Counsel for petitioners also submitted that though they have been paying the rent to the respondents but this payment of rent would not make the respondents, the owner of the property in question, since the said rent had been paid under the impression that the respondents were the owner of the property. He also submitted that the respondents do not fall within the definition of “Landlord” as mentioned under Section 2(c) of the Act of 2001 and thus in the absence of relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute.

8. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that the details of the said property as mentioned in the documents submitted by the respondents do not match with the details of the property in dispute, as both the documents are relating to different properties. It was also submitted that the respondents have not placed on record any document to establish as to how the property in question, came in his or his ancestors’ possession.

9. Learned Counsel for petitioners also submitted that the learned Rent Tribunal ought to have considered the preliminary issue, which included allowing Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, before going into the merits of the case. Learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon Union of India & Ors. v. Adani Exports, AIR 2002 SC 26 decided on 31.10.2001. The relevant portions of the judgment read as under :

“5. Having considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and having perused the records, we are of the considered opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be first decided by