1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12872/2008. Mangi Lal Saini. VERSUS Civil Judge (JD), Chomu and Another. 06.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.M.M.Ranjan, for the petitioner. Mr.Ramesh Kumawat, for the respondent. ***** In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the learned trial court by which the application submitted by the petitioner for the amendment of the written statement on 20.05.2008 has been dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.2, the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act by terminating the tenancy by giving a notice in view of the fact that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short “the Act of 1950”) had been repealed vide Section 32 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (Act No.1 of 2003) (in short “the Act of 2001”) w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and the new Act of 2001 is not applicable to the premises in dispute. In the original written statement, no such plea, as is sought to be incorporated now by the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition was raised and hence, the application 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for raising the ground in para 8(क) was filed for amending the written statement. It may be noticed that the aforesaid ground which is sought to be raised in para 8(क) was available to the petitioner even at the time when the original written statement was filed and, therefore, keeping in view the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. since the trial has already begun, the aforesaid amendment application could not have been allowed. Though the above reason has not been given by the learned trial court for rejecting the aforesaid application but nonetheless the provisions of the statute cannot be lost sight of. Be that as it may, it is necessary that the case may also be dealt with on merits. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the Act of 2001 has repealed the Act of 1950 and since the applicability of the Act of 2001 (Act No.1/2003) is only applicable partially to some of the areas as mentioned in the said Act and notification issued thereunder, the area to which the Act of 2001 is not applicable and in which the old Act of 1950 was in force they would still be required to deal with the eviction matters in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1950 and the suit under the Transfer of Property Act would not be maintainable in view of Section 13 of the Act of 1950. 3 I have considered the aforesaid submissions. With a view to appreciate the same it is necessary to take in to account the provisions of the repealing Section of the Act of 2001 and Section 1 of the same Act. Section 32 of the Act of 2001 reads as follows:- “32. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No.17 of 1950) shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of this Act. (2) XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX” Section 1 of the Act of 2001 deals with the extent and commencement of the Act of 2001. The same reads as follows:- “1. Short title, extent and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. (2) It shall extend in first instance to such of the municipal areas which are comprising the District Headquarters in the State and later on to such of the other municipal areas as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time. (3) It shall come into force with effect from such date, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.” It may be noticed her that vide sub-section (1) of 4 Section 32 of the Act of 2001, the Act of 1950 has been repealed with effect from the date under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001 which has been quoted above deals with the date of coming into force of the Act of 2001. This date has been notified as 01.04.2003. Thus, so far as the repealing Section 32 of the Act of 2001 is concerned, sub-section (1) does not limit the repeal to the extent of the Act of 2001 only and it has only specified that the repeal shall come into force with effect from the date notified under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001. In that view of the matter to contend that in view of the fact that under sub-section (2) of the Section 1 of the Act of 2001, the Act of 2001 having a limited application to the extent of the areas mentioned in sub- section (2) of the Act of 2001 the entire Act of 1950 has not been repealed cannot be accepted as a plane reading of sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001 clearly leads to the intention that vide sub- section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001, the Act of 1950 has been repealed in its entirety. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore and 16 Others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 29 had an occasion to consider the provisions of the Act of 2001. In para 4 of the said report, the Division Bench while considering the contention with regard to the 5 constitutional validity of the Act of 2001 had occasion to deal with the object of the Act of 2001. The observations made by the Division Bench in this regard in para 4 of the said report are as under:- “..... The Old Act of 1950 has been repealed in the year 2001 after a lapse of more than 50 years and its objects and reasons were broadly as follows:- “Statement objects and reasons The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No.17 of 1950) has been in force for nearly five decades and during these years the situation prevailing with regard to the premises in the State has undergone a considerable change and as a result of changed scenario, the law relating to premises warrants change. This matter has been engaging attention of the State Government for the past several years and the matter was considered time and again from all angles. The existing law owing to feeling of insecurity among the landlords in getting the premises vacated, is impeding the growth of letable premises. Hence, adequate provision for timely vacation of premises as also determination of fair rent is the necessity of the hour. Certain inbuilt safeguards for tenants are also required to be retained and certain premises are required to be kept out of the scope of new law. It has, therefore, become necessary to replace the existing law relating to control of rent and eviction of premises.” (Emphasis supplied.) From the above, it becomes clear that though the Division Bench was not concerned so far as the question of repeal of Act of 1950 is concerned but the Division Bench has observed in para 4 of the said report that Act of 1950 has been repealed in the year 6 2001 (sic 2003) i.e. after a lapse of more than 50 years. With a view to appreciate the present contention, it is necessary to look into the statement of object and reasons, quoted above. The Legislature consciously with a view to remove the existing anomaly took into consideration the fact that it was striking a balance of keeping the safeguards for the tenants intact and at the same time excluding the applicability of the New Act to certain premises and for that purpose the Government was left with the discretion of applying the New Act to areas at its discretion under sub- section (2) of Section 1. Thus, the plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 32 does not leave any room for doubt that the Act of 1950 stood repealed in its entirety w.e.f. 01.04.2003 on coming into force of the Act of 2001 by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 32, as sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001 does not restrict the application of repeal only to the areas to which the Act of 2001 has been made applicable. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.