1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.885/08 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chaitnya Prakash Bansal & Ors. Date of order : 4/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Virendra Agarwal for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2007, whereby the Rent Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for framing of additional issues. The original issue that was framed was only to the effect that whether applicant is entitled to mesne profit / use and occupation charges in the sum of Rs.28,0000/- per month during the pendency of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner company is having paid up capital of more than one crore, therefore the provisions 2 contained in Chapter 2 and 3 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 are not applicable. This was required to be examined by the learned Tribunal at the threshold whereas the Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's objection has permitted cross examination of the witnesses of the applicant. Having considered the arguments and perused the impugned order, it is evident that the Tribunal in the self same order has observed that the objection raised by the petitioner could be decided even after cross examination in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Rent Control Act. Though the provisions of CPC as such are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the Rent Tribunal, but at the same time the Tribunal has been given the liberty to regulate is own procedure subject to principles of natural justice. 3 It is therefore clarified that Tribunal before deciding the main matter on merits shall also decide the objections raised by the petitioner as to non applicability of provisions of Chapter I and II of the Rent Control Act and applicability of provisions of Transfer of Property Act. In view of the first proviso to Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act which inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this Act extends, only the Rent Tribunal and no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant but in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapter II and III of the said Act would not apply, with due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 4 1882, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before a Civil Court by way of suit. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Tribunal shall obviously consider the fact and implication of the aforesaid provision prior to deciding the matter on merits. I therefore do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed the Tribunal. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/