1 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.227/2010. (Faiyaz Hussain Vs. Samast Panch Kaum Silawatan Committee) DATE OF ORDER : December 06, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS __________________________________________ Mr. Manoj Joshi for the petitioner. Instant revision petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. and challenge has been made to the order dated 03.09.2010 passed upon the application filed by defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. in the suit filed by respondent No.1 plaintiff Committee for cancellation of rent-agreement and for permanent injunction and declaration. In the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., the argument raised by the defendant-petitioner is that as per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Control Act, the jurisdiction to hear the controversy is left with the Rent Control Tribunal because it is dispute of rent-agreement and civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. Only the Tribunal is having jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Control Act, 2001 to adjudicate the controversy which is raised in the suit. According to facts of the case, suit was filed by the 2 respondent Committee against defendant-petitioner No.1 and four other persons, in which, prayer was made that rent agreement dated 16.02.2009 may be declared void and illegal and respondents No.2 to 5 may be directed to pay rent to the plaintiff Committee. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is based upon the ground that a false agreement has been made by the defendant-petitioner while treating himself to be owner of the property in favour of defendants No.2 to 5. But, in fact, the plaintiff- respondent Committee made the prayer in the suit that the property in question is in their possession and they are title-holder of the property and defendant-petitioner Faiyaj Hussain has illegally executed the rent agreement which is null and void. In the above suit, a prayer was made to declare the said rent agreement illegal, therefore, learned trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., observed that it is not dispute in between landlord and tenant; but, it is dispute of title of the property, for which, defendant- petitioner has executed rent agreement with other defendants and defendant-petitioner and defendants No.2 to 5 (in the suit) executed a rent-agreement for the property which belongs to the plaintiff-respondent 3 Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court and jurisdiction is left with the Rajasthan Rent Control Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards proviso to Section 18 and submits that as per the language of Section 18, all disputes in between landlord and tenants and other related matters can be decided by the Rent Control Tribunal only. In support of his contention, he has invited attention of the Court towards judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 2685 and submits that if any prayer is not made for possession, then, the suit is not maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act. Upon perusal of Section 18 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that dispute in between landlord and tenant can be raised before the Rent Control Tribunal; but, here, in this case, the plaintiff-respondent brought the suit on the ground that plaintiff Committee is possessing ownership of the property in question but defendant- petitioner has illegally executed rent agreement in favour of the other defendants which is illegal. In my opinion, learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that 4 this case does not fall within the parameters of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, so also, rightly concluded that in the present suit the dispute of ownership of the property is in question, therefore, the suit is not barred by any law. In this view of the matter, no error has been committed by learned trial Court. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is thus no force in this revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a. 5 In this second appeal, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006 passed by learned first appellate Court in Civil First Appeal (Decree) No.96/1993, whereby, learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1989 passed by Munsiff (City), Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.318/68 which is passed in civil suit for redemption of mortgage. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court after taking into consideration of evidence and pleadings dismissed the suit of plaintiff-respondents and gave finding that the plaintiffs have not proved issues No.1, 8A, 8B and 8C. Against said judgment passed by the trial Court, appeal was preferred and, in the first appeal, the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit against the defendant-petitioners while reversing the findings upon issues No.1, 8B and 8C. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the finding of learned appellate Court is totally perverse and contrary to pleadings of the case because the plaintiffs did not prove the mortgage-deed in accordance with Section 69 of Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence 6 Act. Further, it is submitted that some defendants were impleaded as party subsequently during the pendency of the suit and, till their impleadment, limitation of suit in respect of such defendants had expired, therefore, learned first appellate Court ought to have considered this aspect of the matter which is not considered by the first appellate Court in proper manner. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the finding of the first appellate Court with regard to issue No.8A, 8B and 8C are not based upon proper application of law, therefore, in this case following questions of law emerge for consideration : “........................................................”