1 5 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4510/2007 Smt.Kanchan Bai Vs. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) & Ors. Date of Order :: 1st December 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.B.L.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the respondent No.2. ...... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the defendant-petitioner seeks to question the order dated 14.03.2007 (Annex.4) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nathdwara in C.O. No. 2/2004 whereby an application moved by him seeking amendment of the written statement was disallowed. By way of amendment, the petitioner wanted to insert the plea in the written statement to the effect that with amendment of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (‘the Act’/ ‘the Act of 2001’) by the Second Amendment Act of 2005 that became effective on 22.02.2006, the Act came to be extended to all municipal areas including the area in question; and, therefore, the suit as filed for eviction dehors the requirements of the Act of 2001 was not maintainable. The learned Trial Court proceeded to reject the application with the observations that as on the date of filing of the suit, the said amendment had not come into effect. Though this Court has reservations on the proposition of law as adopted by the learned Trial Court but even when the order impugned may not be correct on the reasonings on which it proceeds, the application as made by the petitioner 2 was nevertheless required to be rejected for the fundamental reason that as per the requirement of Section 1(2) of the Act of 2001, the requisite notification extending the Act to the area in question has not been issued. This Court in the case of Rampal Vs. All Bramin Swarnkar Panchayat & Ors.: 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1363 has referred to the aforesaid provisions of the Act and observed as under:- “9. In my view, thus, on the reading of the consequently amended sub-section (2) also, it cannot be said that the Act is applicable to the municipal area of Merta City, in absence of any notification published in Official Gazette, specifying the Act to have become applicable to this area. In that view of the matter, though for different reason, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order.” In view of the specific requirement of Section 1(2) of the Act of 2001 and for the view taken in Rampal’s case (supra), the plea sought to be taken by the petitioner remains untenable for want of requisite notification extending the Act to the area in question. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the application for amendment as moved by the petitioner was required to be rejected. Hence, the impugned order calls for no interference, though for different reasons. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.