The Rent Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to handle eviction applications under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, even in commercial contexts, as established in the current case.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan Second (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the rent eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a lease deed was executed between the parties for the subject property, wherein, commercial activities of running hotel were conducted. Counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the landlord was supposed to maintain the subject property and pay salary to the staff posted in the hotel. Counsel submits that the language contained in this agreement reveals that there was a commercial transaction between the parties and in case, any dispute occurs between the parties with regard to commercial transaction/ commercial activities, the same should be adjudicated by the Commercial Court under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’). Counsel submits that giving go-by to the provisions contained under the Act of 2015, the respondent No.1 submitted an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, against the petitioner for his eviction from the subject premises. Counsel submits that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, is not maintainable and the same is barred by law, hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the same. Counsel submits that even as per the provisions contained under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act of 2015, the provisions of the Act of 2001 are not applicable on the premises, wherein hotel activities are running. Hence, under these circumstances, the eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was not maintainable. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

A. Mamta Kapoor and another vs. Vinod Kumar Rai reported in 2024 NCAHC 96148, passed by the Allahabad High Court.

B. Prince Kazmi vs. Sandeep Kathuria and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.84/2022) dated 28.03.2023, passed by this Court.

C. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another reported in 2020 (15) SCC 585, passed by the Supreme Court.

3. Counsel submits that overlooking the above submissions made by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the order impugned has been passed, by which, the application submitted by the petitioner for rejection of the eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 has been rejected, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there was no commercial transaction between the parties. Counsel submits that the subject premises was given on lease on certain rent to the petitioner, for which the lease deed was executed with the condition that the rent would be increased after a particular time. Counsel submits that the subject premises is a commercial premises, which falls within the definition of Section 2(f)(b) of the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that when the rent was not paid by the petitioner, eviction application was submitted under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that as per Section 18 of the Act of 20