1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Faimuddin Vs. Prem Chand Lodha (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.116/2010) Date of Order :- May 03, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Govind Choudhary, for the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Civi Judge (J.D.), Ramganj Mandi, Kota and by the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, Kota, the appellant has filed the second appeal before this court. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit against the defendant-appellant for eviction from his shop on the basis that he does not wish to keep him as a tenant. The defendant-appellant filed written statement stating therein that he is carrying business of STC/PCO in the said shop with permission and consent of the plaintiff- respondent. The permission was granted by the plaintiff to him on 19.01.2004, on a stamp paper of Rs.10/-. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the trial court framed six issues. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court passed the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2007 in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendant-appellant submitted a regular appeal before the 2 Additional District Judge, Ramganj Mandi, Kota. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2007. Hence, this second appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the parties had entered into a memorandum of understanding whereby the landlord had permitted the appellant to occupy the shop for a period of one year, the landlord was not justified in issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and for seeking his eviction. Secondly, since the Rent Control Act, 2001 is not applicable to Ramganj Mandi, therefore, the old Rent Control Act, 1950 would be deemed to be applicable. Since the old act was applicable, the landlord was legally bound to show reasons for seeking eviction of the appellant from the premises. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. Section 32 of the Rent Control Act deals with “repeal and savings”. According to said Section, the new Act does not lay down that where the new Act is inapplicable, the old Act would continue to operate. Moreover, in catena of cases, this Court has clearly held that in those areas where the new Act is inapplicable, such areas would be covered under Section 106 of T.P. Act. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned 3 counsel for the appellant is unacceptable. Furthermore, since a valid notice was issued under Section 106 of T.P. Act, the respondent was not required to give any reasons for seeking eviction of the appellant from the shop. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is also unacceptable. Merely because a memorandum of understanding had been entered between the parties, it would not preclude the respondent from issuing a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act. At worse, the appellant could claim that there is breach of contract. However, such a breach would not protect the appellant from eviction. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel is equally unacceptable. Lastly and most importantly, no substantial questions of law have been raised, as the entire case is based on factual matrix. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-