PREMLATA SHARMA Vs. SUMAN SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dt. 11.07.2013 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate & Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Rent Tribunal') in original application No. 203/2013 whereby the defendant/petitioner's (hereinafter 'the defendant') application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC had been dismissed. In my considered opinion an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable in an eviction petition filed under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001'). The Act of 2001 provides for a 'summary procedure' for redressal of landlord -tenant disputes and allowing for application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be a prescription for prolonging trials under the Act of 2001. Further Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001 provides that the Rent Tribunal and the appellate Court shall not be bound by the CPC except in respect of specified matters detailed in Clause (a) to (h) thereof. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC do not find any mention amongst Clause (a) to (h) in Section 21(3) of the Act of 2001.

(2.) IT is also in place to record that even subsequent to the passing of the ex -parte certificate of possession against the defendant by the Rent Tribunal which has attained finality the defendant continues to be in possession as a tenant. In terms of Section 2(i) of the Act of 2001, unauthorized continuation in possession even subsequent to termination of tenancy entails the occupant being a tenant against whom the landlord can take further proceedings and seek directions from the Rent Tribunal within the provisions of the Act of 2001. In my considered opinion there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the impugned order dt. 11.07.2013 passed by the trial Court. The petition is without any force. Dismissed.