IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8764/2008 Kasturi Devi Vs. The Rent Tribunal & Ors. 01.9.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Santosh Kumar Jaiman, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioner has raised grievance against the order dated 17.5.2008 as well as the order dated 21.7.2008 by which the two applications have been decided by the learned Rent Control Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders dated 17.5.2008 and 21.7.2008. I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 17.5.2008. Learned Tribunal has disposed of the application purported to have been filed under order 14 rule 5 C.P.C. by the plaintiff non-petitioner. The necessity for filing the said application arose on account of the reply filed by the petitioner to the application for eviction, in which the petitioner interalia submitted that the applicant was not the owner of the property and that the petitioner was not the tenant of the applicant and instead claimed title of the property in question. Based on the above averments which as per the applicant also amount to a ground for eviction under Section 9 (f) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001, the application came to be filed by the applicant before the learned Tribunal with a prayer to frame the issue with regard to denial of title. It is the aforesaid application which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act of 2001 more particularly on account of the provision contained under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001. In particular the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the provisions of Sub Section 3 of Section 21 of the Act. The said provision reads as follows : “(3) The Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principal of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder and shall have powers to regulate their own procedure, and for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act they shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (Central Act No.5 of 1908) while trying a suit or an appeal in respect of following matters, namely :- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) reviewing its decision' (d)issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (e) dismissing petition for default or deciding it ex-parte; (f) setting aside any order of dismissal of any petition for default or any order passed by it ex- parte (g) bringing legal representatives on record; and (h) any other matter as may be prescribed.” I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the provision of Sub Section 3 of Section 21 of the Rent Control Act. As has been mentioned above the necessity for moving the application and for permission to raise the said issue for seeking eviction on the ground of denial of title as contained under Section 9 (f) has arisen on account of the plea taken by the petitioner in the written statement in reply to para 3 of the application submitted by the land lord. Though strictly speaking the provision of CPC 1908 are not applicable, needless to say that by framing an issue by the Tribunal, it is in the interest of all concerned including the parties that they may know what is the case and on which issues the parties are required to lead the evidence and the the points on which the court is required to give a decision. The provision of Section 21 (3) enables the Tribunal to decide the matters in accordance with the principles of natural justice and also to some extrent regulate its own procedure. In the facts and circumstances therefore I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.5.2008. The second challenge by the petitioner is to the order dated 21.7.2008. Though ordinarily this court does not permit the petitioner to file a single writ petition in respect of two orders, however without going into the aforesaid controversy I propose to decide this writ petition on merits. The petitioner moved an application under Section 15 (5) of the Rent Control Act 2001 and contended that the provision of Section 15 (5) are mandatory and since the application under Section 9 submitted by the landlord has not been decided by the Tribunal within a period of 240 days the Tribunal has become functus officio and cannot proceed to decide the application after the lapse of the aforesaid period of 240 days. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While it is true that the legislature has provided that the application should be decided within 240 days but the same can not be said to be mandatory and the non observance of the same cannot result in the petition being discarded, or the court/Tribunal prevented from deciding the same. On account of having become functus officio. Consequences of failure to decide the application within the time has deliberately not been provided by the legislature and hence the provision is directory. However an endeavour must be made by the Tribunalsto decide the cases within the prescribed time as far as possible any without undue delay. In the facts and circumstances therefore I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.7.2008. This writ petition is consequently dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS