ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is the original defendant before the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 4216 of 2015, has requested to quash and set aside the order dated 18th December, 2017 passed below Exh.7. 2. The short facts leading to the present case reads as under:- 2.1 Respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the present petitioner-original defendant for recovery of the agreed rent and to get vacant possession of the suit premises before the learned Civil Court, Vadodara. As per the contentions made by plaintiff in the suit, defendant was permissible user since 2006 and agreed rent was fixed as Rs. 3200/- in June, 2006. Thereafter, in June, 2007, agreed rent was increased to Rs.3500/ afresh. In the year 2009-2010, agreed rent was again increased to Rs.4500/- . Rent agreement was executed for the period of 11 months. That, other Municipal Taxes were also to be paid by the defendant in addition to maintenance charges of the society. As agreed rent was not paid regularly by the defendant, it was requested by the plaintiff to pass a decree against the defendant and to pay outstanding agreed rent of Rs. 2,97,000/- and get vacant possession of the suit premises. The defendant appeared before the Court below and filed his written statement. Thereafter, vide application Exh. 7 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code an application was submitted by the defendant stating that the defendant was a tenant of the suit premises and agreed rent of Rs.3500/- was already paid by him. It was also agreed that from 2009-2010, rent was increased at Rs.4500/- per month, which was also paid up to 22nd April, 2010. However, defendant was threatened by the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises, and therefore, to protect the rights as tenant, Rent Suit No. 457 of 2010 was filed by him before learned Small Cause Court, Vadodara for permanent injunction and declaration. As per the contention raised in the written statement, defendant was paying the agreed rent regularly. Only rent of 3-4 months, as arrears, for which he was ready and willing to pay to the plaintiff, however, it was not accepted by the plaintiff. As per the contention raised in the written statement, defendant was paying the agreed rent regularly. Only rent of 3-4 months, as arrears, for which he was ready and willing to pay to the plaintiff, however, it was not accepted by the plaintiff. It was further contended that under the Gujarat Rent Act, the suit was not maintainable as before filing of the suit under the Rent Act, no mandatory notice as required was issued by the plaintiff and the suit was filed for vacating the suit premises. That, defendant was staying as tenant in the suit premises with his family members and he was paying regular rent to the plaintiff. As false cause of action was arose by the plaintiff in the suit therefore, suit was not maintainable hence, it was requested to dismiss the suit. Learned trial Curt, after hearing of the parties, was pleased to dismiss the application vide order dated 18th March, 2017. Hence, present petition is preferred by the present petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 as well as Article 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the order passed below Exh. 7 by the trial Court is contrary to the facts and law. That, trial Court has materially erred in not considering the material provision under Section 12(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 in stricto senso. It was further submitted that mandatory requirements of issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not complied with by the plaintiff before filing of the suit under the Act, and therefore, suit itself was not maintainable. It was further submitted that finding arrived by the trial Court in an application below Exh. 7 that factual aspect raised by the defendant in his application could be adjudicated only after taking evidence was not correct and proper. That, the trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the application moved by the defendant vide Exh.7 in its true letter and spirit. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court vide Exh. That, the trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the application moved by the defendant vide Exh.7 in its true letter and spirit. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court vide Exh. 7 on 18th December, 2017 in Regular Civil Suit No. 4216 of 2015. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner and contended that suit was not filed under the provisions of the Gujarat Rent Control Act but, it was filed on the basis of lease agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Refering the contents of the plaint, it is submitted that it is clearly averred in para 3 of the plaint that lease agreement was executed between the parties and rent was agreed and subsequently, rent was increased to Rs.4500/- per month. It was further submitted that previously also Regular Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 was filed by the defendant before the Civil Court, Vadodara against the original plaintiff-respondent which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 9th January, 2018. It is further submitted that against the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010, Regular Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2018 was preferred by the respondent-defendant before the District Court, Vadodara, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 29th September, 2018. That, defendant has suppressed the material facts of filing of the Regular Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 as well as Regular Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2018. That, false application was filed by the defendant below exh.7 with a view to harass the plaintiff. That, no agreed rent amount was deposited by the defendant before the trial Court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss this petition and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 6. For ready reference Order 7 Rule 11 provides as under:- 11. Rejection of plaint. That, no agreed rent amount was deposited by the defendant before the trial Court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss this petition and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 6. For ready reference Order 7 Rule 11 provides as under:- 11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : [(e)where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp- paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] 7. If we consider the contents of the plaint of the suit filed by the plaintiff, it appears that on the basis of leave and licensee agreement executed between the parties, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the agreed rent which was not paid by the defendant from 29th April, 2010 to September, 2015 for a period of 66 months and for getting vacant possession. No averments were made by the plaintiff in the suit as status of the defendant was tenant of the suit premises. No averments were made by the plaintiff in the suit as status of the defendant was tenant of the suit premises. For the first time in the application given by the defendant below Exh.7, he contended that he was tenant of the suit premises and agreed rent was fixed as Rs.4500/- per month as he was ready and willing to pay arrears of rent. It also appears that the material facts of filing earlier suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 457 of 2010 was also suppressed by him in an application preferred by him below exh.7. That, defence raised by the defendant in his application below Exh.7 in respect of filing of the suit but no notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the Gujarat Rent Control Act, maintainability of suit in absence of mandatory notice, cannot permit him to raise and to pray the Court to dismiss or return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Defence raised by the defendant would not be considered for accepting the prayer. It is settled law, the only averments made in the plaint can be considered while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 8. This Court would like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0513/2021 wherein, it is held as under:- 16. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected “where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law”. Hence, in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed. The Court while deciding such an application must have due regard only to the statements in the plaint. Whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case. This Court would also relied upon the another decision rendered in case of Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [MANU/SC/1185/2002 : (2003) 1 SCC 557 ] in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under :- “9. This Court would also relied upon the another decision rendered in case of Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [MANU/SC/1185/2002 : (2003) 1 SCC 557 ] in which, while considering Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, it was held as under :- “9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit—before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.” 9. Having considered the facts that the defence raised by the defendant that he is tenant of the suit premises, the mandatory requirement under Section 12(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act cannot be a ground to allow the application below Exh.7 preferred by the defendant. No error is committed by the Court below in rejecting the application below Exh.7. As there is no substance made by the petitioner to interfere the order passed by the Court below. Hence, present petition is ordered to be dismissed. Notice is discharged. 10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent requests to direct the trial Court to expedite the suit as it is pending since 2015. 11. Considering the length of pendency of the suit, respondent is permitted to request the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.