JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J.--1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam in C.P.A. No. 3-A of 93 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1.3.94 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class II, Ratlam, in COS No. 15-A of 1993. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application under S. 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in the Court of the Rent Controlling Authority, Ratlam for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground that they were the landlords of the house in question. The R.C.A. after recording the evidence passed an order for eviction in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the R.C.A. the present appellant filed a revision petition before this Court under S. 23-E of the Act. This Court, however, did not interfere in the order of the R.C.A. and confirmed the same. Consequently the revision was rejected. 3. The appellant thereafter filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam who dismissed the suit holding that in view of the clear provisions contained in Ss. 36 and 45 of the Act the appellant is not entitled to file a civil suit against the eviction order of the R.C.A. On an appeal being filed before the lower appellate Court the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Maheshwari strenuously argues that the order of eviction has been obtained by fraud because of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not prove their title to the suit accommodation. Actually the order was passed without disclosing the full facts before the Court and as such the order being based on fraud and suppression of material facts, the civil Court has the jurisdiction to declare the eviction order as a nullity. 5. On the other hand it has been argued by Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent that the provisions of law are clear and a civil suit Cannot lie against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority which has been confirmed in revision. 6. 5. On the other hand it has been argued by Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent that the provisions of law are clear and a civil suit Cannot lie against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority which has been confirmed in revision. 6. After perusing the provisions contained in the Act I am of the view that this appeal is without any force. Section 36 of the Act reads as follows: "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by the Rent Controlling Authority shall, subject to decision in appeal, be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding." This provision, therefore, clearly debars a civil Court from entertaining any suit in respect of the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The Rent Controlling Authority is a Tribunal created by a Special Enactment which is the Act governing the relationship of landlords and tenants and persons falling in any of the categories provided in section 23-J can file an application for eviction before the R.C.A. Against the order of R.C.A. a revision petition lies before the High Court directly. As such the only remedy which is available to a person aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controlling Authority is to approach the High Court and once the High Court also confirms the order of the R.C.A. then the order of the Rent Controlling Authority cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. 7. It is true that a person can file a Civil Suit for setting aside a decree which may be obtained by fraud or suppression of facts. But in view of the special enactment wherein the finality to the orders passed by the Special Tribunal has been attached by the Statute itself, no suit would lie in view of the clear Statutory provision forbidding the filing of an original suit against the order passed by the R.C.A. which becomes final subject to the decision in appeal or revision. Section 45 also bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court except in those matters which have been otherwise expressly provided in this Act. Of course the civil Court may entertain a suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any accommodation or the right of a person to receive the rent of such accommodation. Section 45 also bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court except in those matters which have been otherwise expressly provided in this Act. Of course the civil Court may entertain a suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any accommodation or the right of a person to receive the rent of such accommodation. But that is an exception carved out in S. 45 itself wherein jurisdiction of Civil Court<; has been barred in respect of certain matters. 8. Now, in the Act itself S.11A clearly says that the provisions of Chapter III as far as they relate to matters specially provided in Chapter III-A shall not apply to the landlord defined in section 23-J. Chapter III-A provides for the summary procedure for eviction of the tenants on ground of bona fide requirement and the provisions of Chapter III-A can be invoked by the landlords who fall in the categories provided in S. 23-J of the Act. A revision against the order of the R.C.A. has been provided under S. 23E. As such in Chapter III-A a complete procedure has been provided for invoking the jurisdiction of the R.C.A. a specially constituted Tribunal, by those persons who fall within the definition of the landlord for the purpose of Chapter III-A provided in S. 23-J of the Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid it is manifest that" the learned trial Court has not erred in any way in dismissing the suit filed by the present appellant and the learned lower appellate Court has also not committed any error of law of fact in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 10. Consequently the second appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed being without any merits.