JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.11.2009 of the Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh, whereby an objection raised by the petitioner questioning the maintainability of the petition preferred by the respondent-Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited ('the Bank') under Section 6 & 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short-"the Act of 2001"), stands rejected. 2. The respondent-Bank preferred a petition for revision of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the premises, a shop, in terms of provisions of Section 6 & 9 of the Act of 2001. Alternatively, it was prayed that if the provisions of Chapter II & III are found not applicable to the premises in question, the petition may be treated to be under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act of 1882"). 3. The petition is being contested on behalf of the petitioner herein, by filing a reply thereto. The petitioner raised an objection in terms that the petition preferred under the Act of 2001 and the Act of 1882 is not maintainable. It was contended that the averments made in the petition are absolutely vague and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. After due consideration, the Tribunal found that by virtue of provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act of 2001, Chapter II & III or the Act do not apply to the premises let out by the respondent-bank to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal observed that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3, by virtue of provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the dispute between the landlord and tenant has to be determined by the Tribunal and therefore, the petition can be treated to be a petition in terms of provisions of the Act of 1882. Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the respondent-bank to amend the petition keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 1882. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the petition preferred by the respondent-bank, treating it to be a petition in terms of provisions of the Act of 1882. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under the Act of 1882 inasmuch as, the suit thereunder can only be tried by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under the Act of 1882 inasmuch as, the suit thereunder can only be tried by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that without there being prayer, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to direct that the respondent-bank may amend the petition keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 1882. Learned counsel submitted that a petition preferred in the format prescribed under the Act cannot be treated to be a petition under the provisions of the Act of 1882. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has supported the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3 by virtue of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, all disputes between the landlord and tenant in the area where the Act of 2001 is applicable could be heard and decided only by the Rent Tribunal and no civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition in this respect and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. A bare perusal of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the areas to which the Act of 2001 extends only the Rent Tribunal and no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide the petition relating to disputes between landlord and tenants and the matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto filed under the provisions of the Act. That apart, as per the first proviso attached to Section 18 of the Act, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapter II & III do not apply, shall be decided by the Rent Tribunal having due regard to the provisions of Indian Contract Act, 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. In this view of the matter, a conjoint reading of provisions of Section 3 read with Section 18 makes it abundantly clear that the matter with regard to the dispute between landlord and tenant in respect of any premises situated in the area to which the Act of 2001 extends could be entertained only by the Rent Tribunal and no civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. 9. It is to be noticed that while seeking eviction of the tenant, the respondent-bank has taken the specific stand in the petition that notice terminating the tenancy was issued to the petitioner-tenant, however, even after expiry of the period of notice, the premises has not been vacated and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be evicted. That apart, an alternative prayer has been specifically incorporated that if the Chapter II & III of the Act of 2001 are not found to be applicable to the premises in question, the petition may be treated to be under the provisions of T.P. Act. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has committed no error in treating the petition to be under the provisions of the Act of 1882. 10. Coming to the order of the Tribunal in permitting the petitioner to amend the petition keeping in view the provisions of the Act of 1882, suffice it to say that even without there being any such order of the Tribunal, the respondent-bank well within its right to seek amendment of the pleadings and therefore, nothing turns on the question that such permission has been granted by the Tribunal. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner on account of the order having been passed by the Tribunal as aforesaid inasmuch as, if any application is preferred by the respondent-bank seeking leave to amend the petition, the same can be contested by the petitioner on the available grounds by filing a reply thereto. 11. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the petition preferred on behalf of the respondent-bank for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******