ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the reply has been rejected. 2. By filing the application, the petitioner wanted to raise objection about the maintainability of the petition, which was filed under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'). It was, inter alia, submitted that such combined application under two different provisions of the act was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the procedure for deciding the application under Section 6 and Section 9 of the Act was different. 3. The application was opposed by the respondent-landlord and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal rejected the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as the combined application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act is not maintainable and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Reliance has been filed on judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand Goyal Vs. Rent Tribunal, Alwar, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17386 of 2011, decided on 21.12.2011. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 7. The respondent-landlord filed application for revision of rent and for eviction under provisions pertaining to both aspects. Reply was filed by the petitioner and where after the present application was filed seeking to question the maintainability of the combined proceedings under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act. 8. A bare perusal of the provisions of the Act reveals that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding a different procedure having been prescribed by the Act for dealing with the applications has no substance. 9. Further, in every proceeding, a party is required to include the whole claim in respect of the cause of action, which in the present case is qua the tenant, wherein the landlord is seeking eviction as well as the revision of rent and, therefore, the filing of a combined petition Sections 6 and 9 of the Act cannot be faulted. Further, in every proceeding, a party is required to include the whole claim in respect of the cause of action, which in the present case is qua the tenant, wherein the landlord is seeking eviction as well as the revision of rent and, therefore, the filing of a combined petition Sections 6 and 9 of the Act cannot be faulted. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand Goyal (supra) is concerned, the said judgment was delivered in the case where two separate proceedings, one under Section 6 of the Act and another under Section 9 of the Act were filed and an application was filed seeking consolidation of the said proceedings, which was rejected by the Rent Tribunal and in those circumstances, the Court dismissed the said petition. The judgment has no application to the facts of the present case where a joint petition has been filed since beginning. 10. In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.