ANIL KUMAR SAINI Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 11/7/2023 passed by Rent Tribunal, Sardarshahar, District Churu whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant has been rejected.

(2.) The ground raised by the defendant in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was firstly, that a suit for eviction was earlier preferred by the plaintiff wherein an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred by the defendant and the same was allowed, as a consequence of which, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The suit having once been dismissed, the present suit for the same reliefs would not be maintainable and would be barred by law. Secondly, the fact of the earlier suit having been dismissed, has been concealed in the present suit and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected on the said ground also. Thirdly, all the necessary parties have not been impleaded in the present suit and fourthly, that the present petition has been filed on the basis of a Will dtd. 21/8/2015 which was not averred in the earlier suit and hence, the plaint deserves to be rejected. The learned Court below rejected all the objections as raised by the defendant and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC aggrieved of which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that in the earlier suit the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was allowed only on the ground of jurisdiction. Vide the order dtd. 30/3/2017 passed in the earlier suit, it was held by the Court that the subject matter was based on the relationship of a landlord and tenant and therefore, in view of the fact that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 had been enacted in the Municipal area of Sardarshahar w.e.f. 11/7/2014, the jurisdiction to hear the matter involving the dispute of a landlord and tenant would only be with the Rent Tribunal and not to a Civil Court. Meaning thereby, the earlier suit was rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction holding that the dispute as raised before the Court could be raised only before a Rent Tribunal.