JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 27/1/2011, whereby, the defendant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent plaintiff, a Charitable Trust known as Seth Sugan Chand Charitable Trust, Sriganganagar, came to be dismissed by the learned trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner, Mr. Manish Shishodia submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gyaneshwar Bhati v. Balu Ram & Ors. AIR 2009 Rajasthan 94 and Smt. Nalini Mehta v. State Bank of India, Udaipur & Ors. - SBCWP No. 3076/2004 decided on 7/11/2005 , the court below has erred in holding that the suit before the civil court was still maintainable despite creation of Rent Tribunal under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001, which came into effect w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and admittedly applied to the District of Sriganganagar and suit filed by the plaintiff Trust should be filed before the Rent Tribunal in view of Section 18 of the said Act of 2001 and not before the civil court. He also submitted that notwithstanding the plaintiff Trust being exempted under Section 3 (viii) of the Act which provides that Chapter II and III containing Sections 6 to 10, which chapter II deals with revision of rent containing Sections 6 and 7 and Chapter III deals with tenancy,containing Sections 8 to 10 including Section 9 dealing with eviction of tenant, the Proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 2001 takes care of such situation in the case of Charitable Trust, to whom Chapter II and III do not apply, and the plaintiff can apply to the Rent Tribunal for eviction and incidental matters thereto, to the exclusion of civil court. He submitted that petition for eviction on the basis of provisions of Transfer of Properties Act or Indian Contract Act or any other substantive law applicable to such matter can be dealt with and decided by the Rent Tribunal as per the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act. He submitted that petition for eviction on the basis of provisions of Transfer of Properties Act or Indian Contract Act or any other substantive law applicable to such matter can be dealt with and decided by the Rent Tribunal as per the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act. He further drew the attention of the Court towards subsection (3) of Section 18 of the Act, which provides that where the petition for recovery of possession is filed in respect of the premises or tenancies to which the provisions of Chapter II and III of this Act do not apply, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in Section 15 shall mutatis mutandis apply and the said Section 15 of the Act provides a shorter time limit for filing pleadings and deciding the petition for eviction within 180 days under the provisions of Act of 2001, therefore, he submitted that on the other hand the plaintiff stand to gain by approaching the Rent Tribunal rather than a civil court for seeking possession of suit premises, where much more time is likely to be taken. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Hemant Jain submitted that once Chapter II and III of the Act of 2001 do not apply to the plaintiff Trust, there is no question of application of Section 18 of the Act in the present case and, therefore, the suit filed before the civil court is rightly held to be maintainable and the court below has not erred in rejecting the application of defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 4. He also submitted that the plaintiff had approached the civil court with the case that defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff and is a trespasser on the suit premises, therefore, the suit for possession has rightly been filed by the plaintiff Trust. 5. 4. He also submitted that the plaintiff had approached the civil court with the case that defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff and is a trespasser on the suit premises, therefore, the suit for possession has rightly been filed by the plaintiff Trust. 5. Having heard the learned counsels at some length and upon perusal of provisions of the Act of 2001 and the case laws cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that in view of proviso to Section 18 (1) and Section 18(3) of the Act, it is clear that even though a Trust, like the present respondent, to whom Chapter II and III of the said Act of 2001 do not apply, it can approach the Rent Tribunal for seeking eviction of a tenant or even a trespasser. Section 18 of the Act reads as under:- "18. Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal. - (1) 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 jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto, filed under the provisions of this Act: Provided that Rent Tribunal shall, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapter II and III of this Act do not apply, have due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 (Act No. 4 of 1882) the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. 9 of 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: Provided further that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to empower the Rent Tribunal to entertain a petition involving such dispute between landlord and tenant to which provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (Act No. 2 of 1965) and the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1949 apply. (2) Where the petition only for recovery of unpaid rent or arrears of rent is filed, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in section 14 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition. (2) Where the petition only for recovery of unpaid rent or arrears of rent is filed, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in section 14 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition. (3) Where the petition for recovery of possession is filed in respect of the premises or tenancies to which the provisions of Chapter II and III of this Act do not apply, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in section 15 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition." (4) A petition shall be instituted before the Rent Tribunal, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-the premises is situated." 6. Since the Rent Tribunals have been given power to deal with incidental matters relating to dispute between landlord and tenant also, the case in hand, where suit for possession has been filed before the civil court, is also covered by the said proviso to Section 18 (1) of the Act and could be held to be rightly maintainable before the Rent Tribunal. There is also considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner defendant that the plaintiff, on the other hand, would get better remedy in view of specialised Tribunal, quicker time frame for getting the petition tried rather than a civil court. 7. This Court in Gyaneshwar Bhati's case (supra) has held that where the resolution of the general body of the Society, to which Chapter II and II do not apply, was sought to be challenged and the effect of that resolution was to evict the tenant of the Society, the same resolution which was challenged in the civil court by way of suit was not maintainable and petition under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 would be the remedy and plaintiff was relegated to approach the Rent Tribunal. 8. In the similar circumstances, another coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Nalini Mehta (supra) held that provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2001 has got an absolute overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force in relation to the areas to which the Act applies and in such areas only the Rent Tribunal and no civil court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to the disputes between landlord and tenant. 9. 9. In view of these judgments and clear provisions of the Act of 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application of the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. 10. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27/1/2011 is set aside. Civil Suit No. 151/2009 (Seth Sugan Chand Charitable Trust v. Uma Shanker) is dismissed as not maintainable in that civil court. The plaintiff will, however, have the liberty to approach the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar with appropriate eviction petition, which shall be tried and decided in accordance with provision of Section 15 of the Act of 2001. No costs.Revision Petition Allowed. *******