JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 12-10-2011, passed by Rent Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by petitioners-defendants (herein after 'the defendants') before the Tribunal under Order 7, Rule 11 read with 151 C.P.C., wherein it was prayed that as the respondent-landlord (herein after 'the landlord') in his eviction petition No. 210/2011 has allegedly treated the defendants not a "tenants", but a "tress-passers", the eviction petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal in law and should therefore be dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that a petition for eviction of defendants was filed by the landlord under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('Act of 2001' for short). The ground of eviction advanced were non-use of property, and further that subsequent to death of tenant Poonam Chand Baj, the defendants had no right to continue holding the tenanted premises in any capacity. 3. In the said eviction petition laid by the landlord the defendants moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with 151 CPC emphasising that the case of landlord inter alia was that defendants had no right to continue holding tenanted premises after the death of the tenant Poonam Chand Baj, and the landlord has refused to treat the defendants as tenants, and therefore, the eviction petition laid by the landlord should be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable before the Tribunal. The case of the defendants was that not being recognised as tenants in the eviction petition the Rent Tribunal, a creature of Statute with limited jurisdiction to adjudicate only disputes between landlords and tenants could not entertain the eviction petition. 4. On the matter coming up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that pleadings of the eviction petition laid by the landlord had been misconstrued by the defendants, inasmuch as the petition was laid under section 3 (k) of the Act of 2001, which provides that a landlord could sue for recovery of premises, where the tenanted property had not been used for the purpose it was let out, for six months preceding the date of filing the eviction petition. Counsel for respondent landlord before this court submits that in any event of the matter the defendants would be covered within the definition of term "tenant" as set out under section 2 (i) of the Act of 2001. It was further submitted that the tenancy was a commercial tenancy with the deceased Poonam Chand Baj, and following his death, the said tenancy stood terminated, and the defendants would be persons who are continuing in possession without authority of landlord after the termination of tenancy, and hence tenants within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the Act of 2001. It has further been submitted that not treating the legal heirs of a tenant over commercial property as amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal would be an ana moly and this court ought not to allow and sustain an anomalous interpretation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has come to an error in passing the impugned order dated 12-10-2011. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order dated 12-10-2011. 6. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal had construed the pleadings of the eviction petition in a holistic manner noting that the tenanted premises was let out to Poonam Chand Baj on 6-1-1977, who died on 20-4-2009. Subsequent to death of Poonam Chand Baj, the tenanted premises was not in use, therefore the eviction petition was laid under section 3 (k) of the Act of 2001 by the landlord. In view of such facts, the learned Tribunal has held that the question whether defendants continuing in possession after the father's death over a commercial tenancy of which they were no part by way of being engaged in business therefrom and fell within the definition of 2 (i) of the Act of 2001 could not be conclusively established one way or the other on the basis of eviction petition as laid, and therefore, it could not come to a conclusion that eviction petition was not maintainable as urged in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with 151 C.P.C. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has held that the question raised by the defendants as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and hear the eviction petition should await filing of reply by the defendants in the eviction petition. The Tribunal thus left the determination of issue of maintainability of eviction petition to be considered along with other issues. 7. The proceedings before the Tribunal under the provisions of the Rent Act, 2001 are required to be summary in nature. The proceedings should be concluded as far as possible within the calendar as set out under the Act of 2001. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has only postponed the determination of the question as to whether the eviction petition as laid was maintainable or not, along with the determination of other issues. Provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the Act of 2001 stricto senso, even though the Tribunal can adopt the logic of the said provisions in an eviction petition. No prejudice has been caused to defendants by the impugned order. 8. Counsel for the landlord during the course of arguments submits that since passing of the impugned order dated 12-10-2011, the defendants have filed a reply to the eviction petition, wherein they have claimed themselves to be tenants in the premises of which the landlord seeks eviction. 9. Mr. Ranjan, argues that reply to eviction petition filed by defendants has no relevance for determination of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. And subsequent writ petition. 10. The submission of Mr. Ranjan may be right that an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. has to be decided on the reading of the plaint without looking at the written statement. However that proposition has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in a different context. Presently, this fact cannot be overlooked by this court, while exercising its powers of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate a case of Tribunal not having jurisdiction because the landlord allegedly not treating them as tenants but as trespassers on the one hand, while on the other hand claiming to be tenant before the Tribunal. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, I find no jurisdictional error, incorrectness or impropriety in the order dated 12-10-2011 passed by the Tribunal. 12. The writ petition is without merit, and dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******