Moola Ram Vs. Shri Megh Raj & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7023/06) 1 Moola Ram Vs. Shri Megh Raj & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7023/06) Dated : 5.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 19.7.06 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sumerpur in civil suit no.5/04, whereby an application preferred by the defendant, the petitioner herein praying for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction, has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff, respondent herein, filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner for eviction from a rented premises i.e. a shop and recovery of arrears of rent, after termination of tenancy in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act of 1882'). The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. 3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application before the trial court contending that in view of Rajasthan Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short 'the Amendment Act, 2005'), the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction in terms of provisions of the Act of 1882 and such matter are cognizable Moola Ram Vs. Shri Megh Raj & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7023/06) 2 only by the Rent Tribunal constituted under the Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short 'the Act'). Accordingly, it was prayed that the plaint may be returned to the plaintiff for proper presentation. 4. The application has been rejected by the trial court holding that the suits already filed in terms of the provisions of Act of 1882 and pending before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, are not affected by the Amendment Act, 2005. 5. As per the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001, the Act of 1950 shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 2001. The Sub- section (3) provides that the Act of 2001 shall come into force with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette appoint. It is to be noticed that the Act of 2001 has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.03 vide notification No.F (8)(G)(11) (Rules)/01/2124 dated 21.3.2003 published by the State Government in the official Gazette. Therefore, indisputably by virtue of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001, the Act of 1950, stands repealed. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001, provides that all applications, suit or other proceedings under the repealed Act i.e. Act of 1950 pending on the date of the commencement of the Act of 2001 before any court shall be continue and disposed of in accordance with Moola Ram Vs. Shri Megh Raj & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7023/06) 3 the provisions of the repealed Act as if the repealed Act had continued in force and the Act of 2001 had not been enacted. Under the said provision, the plaintiff has been given liberty to withdraw any suit of appeal or any other proceedings pending under the repealed Act with liberty to file fresh petition in respect of the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any proceedings under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2001.However, it nowhere provides that the Act of 1950 shall continue to remain in operation in respect to the area where the Act of 2001 is not made applicable. Suffice it to say that the Act of 1950, stands repealed and the Act of 2001 was not made applicable to the municipal area of town Sumerpur, therefore, the suit for eviction and possession after termination of tenancy could have been filed by the respondent plaintiff only in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1882. 7. The Act of 2001 has been amended vide Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment), Act 2005, whereby in sub-section (2) of Section 1, the expression “having a population exceeding 50,000 as per 1991 census” has been deleted, and vide notification dated 20.2.2006, the said notification has come into force with immediate effect. But, even after coming into force of the amended sub-section (2) of Section 1, it cannot be said that the Act of 2001 has become applicable to all the municipal areas automatically. As per the amended sub-section (2) of Moola Ram Vs. Shri Megh Raj & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7023/06) 4 Section 1, the Act of 2001 shall become applicable to any other municipal area only after issuance of the notification by the State Government in the Official Gazette. It is not in dispute that no such notification has been issued by the State Government extending the applicability of the Act of 2001 to the municipal area of town Sumperpur. Thus as on the date, neither the Act of 1950 nor the Act of 2001 is applicable to the municipal area of town Sumerpur. 8. In view of discussion above, in considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the trial court rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though for the reasons, different than the reasons assigned by the trial court. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. vij