ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan Second (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the rent eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a lease deed was executed between the parties for the subject property, wherein, commercial activities of running hotel were conducted. Counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the landlord was supposed to maintain the subject property and pay salary to the staff posted in the hotel. Counsel submits that the language contained in this agreement reveals that there was a commercial transaction between the parties and in case, any dispute occurs between the parties with regard to commercial transaction/ commercial activities, the same should be adjudicated by the Commercial Court under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’). Counsel submits that giving go-by to the provisions contained under the Act of 2015, the respondent No.1 submitted an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, against the petitioner for his eviction from the subject premises. Counsel submits that the application submitted by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, is not maintainable and the same is barred by law, hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the same. Counsel submits that even as per the provisions contained under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act of 2015, the provisions of the Act of 2001 are not applicable on the premises, wherein hotel activities are running. Hence, under these circumstances, the eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was not maintainable. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: A. Mamta Kapoor and another vs. Vinod Kumar Rai reported in 2024 NCAHC 96148 , passed by the Allahabad High Court. B. Prince Kazmi vs. Sandeep Kathuria and Ors. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: A. Mamta Kapoor and another vs. Vinod Kumar Rai reported in 2024 NCAHC 96148 , passed by the Allahabad High Court. B. Prince Kazmi vs. Sandeep Kathuria and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.84/2022) dated 28.03.2023, passed by this Court. C. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another reported in 2020 (15) SCC 585 , passed by the Supreme Court. 3. Counsel submits that overlooking the above submissions made by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the order impugned has been passed, by which, the application submitted by the petitioner for rejection of the eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 has been rejected, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there was no commercial transaction between the parties. Counsel submits that the subject premises was given on lease on certain rent to the petitioner, for which the lease deed was executed with the condition that the rent would be increased after a particular time. Counsel submits that the subject premises is a commercial premises, which falls within the definition of Section 2(f)(b) of the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that when the rent was not paid by the petitioner, eviction application was submitted under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. Counsel submits that as per Section 18 of the Act of 2001, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in such like matters and it is only the Rent Tribunal, who is competent and having jurisdiction to entertain eviction petitions. Counsel submits that as per the provision contained under Section 29 of the Act of 2001, provisions contained under the Act of 2001 would have over-riding effect upon the provisions of the Act of 2015. Lastly, she submits that the petitioner himself approached the Tribunal by way of filing an application seeking injunction against the respondent No.1 for his protection from eviction without following the due process of law. Counsel submits that the respondent No.1 raised an objection before the Tribunal that the arrears of the rent have not been paid by the petitioner. Lastly, she submits that the petitioner himself approached the Tribunal by way of filing an application seeking injunction against the respondent No.1 for his protection from eviction without following the due process of law. Counsel submits that the respondent No.1 raised an objection before the Tribunal that the arrears of the rent have not been paid by the petitioner. Counsel submits that after considering the submissions of both sides, the Tribunal passed an order against the petitioner for payment of arrears of the due rent, but instead of making compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal and making payment of due rent for the subject premises, the injunction application was withdrawn by the petitioner to defeat the order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay rent and its arrears. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for withdrawal of the aforesaid injunction application was that an application under Section 9 was submitted by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner, hence, under the changed circumstances, the said injunction application was withdrawn by the petitioner. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that a lease agreement was executed between the parties and the premises in question was leased out to the petitioner on rent with certain terms and conditions. It appears that when the rent was not paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1, an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent No.1 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises. During pendency of the said application, the petitioner submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the aforesaid eviction application on the ground that the eviction application submitted by the respondent is bared by law and the same is not maintainable in terms of the provisions contained under Act of 2015. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the definition clause of the Act of 2015, wherein under Section 2(1)(c)(vii), commercial dispute is defined as a dispute arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The disputes pertaining to such agreements are required to be decided by the Commercial Courts. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the definition clause of the Act of 2015, wherein under Section 2(1)(c)(vii), commercial dispute is defined as a dispute arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The disputes pertaining to such agreements are required to be decided by the Commercial Courts. 9. In the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to any immovable property used exclusively in trade or commercial activities. In the instant case, the subject premises i.e. the commercial premises, was let out to the petitioner on rent on certain terms and conditions. However, the petitioner failed to pay the rent and its arrears and in that eventuality, an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner before the Tribunal. 10. As per the provisions contained under Section 2(f)(b) of the Act of 2001, premises means residential or commercial both. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 is not running any hotel business in the premises in question, it is the petitioner who is running the business of hotel in the subject premises. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the eviction application submitted by the respondent No.1 in terms of Section 18 and 29 of the Act of 2001. The judgments relied by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. It is worthy to note here that such an objection taken by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of the Tribunal, is not tenable, because the petitioner himself submitted an application by approaching the Tribunal for his protection from eviction from the said premises with the pretext that he be not evicted from the said premises without following the due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner that the Rent Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties, then why did the petitioner approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Meaning thereby, the petitioner himself was of the view that it is only the Tribunal who has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the parties. 13. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Meaning thereby, the petitioner himself was of the view that it is only the Tribunal who has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the parties. 13. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference of this Court. This Court finds no merit and substances in this petition. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. 15. Before parting with this order, the Tribunal is directed to decide the pending application expeditiously, as early as possible, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12000/2023, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.