1 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.27/2008. Punjab National Bank Vs. Virendra Kumar & Anr. Date of order :: 1st February 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Yashwant Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, for the non-petitioners. ... BY THE COURT: In view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'), the defendant-petitioner has raised objection about maintainability of the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as filed by the plaintiffs-non- petitioners before the civil court. It is noticed that an issue has also been framed by the trial court on the question of jurisdiction. Earlier, an application was moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the same was rejected by the learned trial court on 31.08.2007. The defendant-petitioner came up in revision before this Court; and the revision petition (No.236/2007) was decided by this Court on 01.10.2007 with the following order:- ''Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2 From perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit is liable to be dismissed on any of the grounds available under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, as such, may be for different reasons, than those given by the learned trial Court, I do not find any error in the ultimate decision about dismissal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC in the trial Court.'' After passing of the order aforesaid, the defendant- petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC before the trial court. By the impugned order dated 13.11.2007, the learned trial court has proceeded to reject the application so moved under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC particularly on the consideration that earlier the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the same grounds was considered with issue No.8 regarding jurisdiction; and the order earlier made treating the suit to be of jurisdiction of civil court was not interfered by the High Court and, therefore, the finding that the suit was of the jurisdiction of the civil court remained intact. The order passed by the learned trial court on 13.11.2007 is challenged in this revision petition; the plaintiffs- non-petitioners have put appearance in caveat; and, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself. 3 Learned counsel Mr. Yashwant Mehta appearing for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and submitted that the property is situated at a place where the provisions of the Act do apply and a Rent Tribunal has been established; and, thus, any litigation concerning the question of rent and eviction could be maintained only before the Tribunal established for the purpose and not before the civil court; and the learned trial court has acted illegally in not considering the provisions of law applicable to the case and in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner only with reference to its previous order dated 31.08.2007. Learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Saruparia appearing in caveat for the non-petitioners, in all fairness, did not attempt to justify the order as passed by the learned trial court, and rightly so. The approach of the learned trial court in assuming that the question of jurisdiction already stands decided by virtue of earlier order dated 31.08.2007 and, for the said order having not been interfered with by this Court, the plaint was not required to be returned, cannot be appreciated. It appears that the learned trial court has not properly taken into comprehension the meaning, effect and purport of the order passed by this Court on 01.10.2007, as reproduced hereinabove. This Court had only approved the ultimate 4 decision about dismissal of the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and not as such the decision on issue No.8; and then, this Court pointed out that such decision on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was being approved ''may be for different reasons''. This Court at the same time left it open for the petitioner-defendant to file appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC in the trial court. If the trial court would have properly looked at the meaning and purport of the order so passed by this Court, it would have been clear that this Court has not as such upheld the decision on issue No.8, even if the same earlier was stated by the trial court together with decision on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Moreover, when this Court had left it open for the petitioner to file appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, the learned trial court ought to have visualised that if the conclusion on the question of jurisdiction would have had the approval of this Court, permission to file appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC would not have been extended at all. The learned trial court ought to have looked at the meaning and purport of the order so passed by this Court on 01.10.2007. Of course, on the question as posed by the petitioner, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but at the same time, if it be found that the suit is not of 5 the jurisdiction of the court concerned and should have been instituted in some other court, obviously, the trial court is required to proceed under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. The learned trial court ought also to have considered the operation and effect of the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and ought to have passed appropriate order on the application moved by the petitioner. The learned trial court has acted illegally and has proceeded with material irregularity in not dealing with the application moved under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on its merits. Then, the impugned order, if made in favour of the petitioner, would terminate the proceedings so far the said court is concerned. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is required to be allowed and the matter is required to be remitted for re-consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on merits. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the order dated 13.11.2007 is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on 16.10.2007 stands restored for re-consideration of the trial court. There shall be no order as to costs of this revision petition. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.