1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.38/2008. Shiv Ratan Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.), Sri Doongargarh & Anr. Date of Order :: 22nd May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been placed on board today at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for being similar and akin to CWP No. 37/2008 listed today in the main cause-list that has been dismissed by a separate order. This petition involves similar facts and identical issues as that of CWP No. 37/2008 wherein this Court has affirmed the similar nature order deleting issues relating to reasonable and bonafide requirement and comparative hardship in the suit for eviction maintained under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 while noticing the candid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that other similar writ petitions led by CWP No.36/2008 have already been dismissed by this Court on 11.03.2008 and while observing,- “The position remains indisputable that the Act of 1950 has been repealed by the Act of 2001 but operation of the Act of 2001 to any area whereto it is extendable depends on issuance of notification by the State Government as required by sub section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001[ vide Rampal Vs. All Brahmin Swarnkar Panchayat & 2 Ors.: 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1363]; and the position further remains indisputable that the requisite notification extending the Act of 2001 to the area in question has not been issued by the State Government. The suit for eviction by the landlord has, thus, been filed and maintained under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act; and obviously, in such a suit consideration of any ground of eviction as provided under the inapplicable rent control legislation is not germane to the real questions in controversy nor right to relief depends upon determination of any such ground. Even if the plaintiff would suggest some ground with reference to such rent control legislation like reasonable and bonafide requirement, the same would not be of material proposition of fact or law so as to call for determination. The order passed by the learned Trial Court deleting such unnecessary issues remains unexceptionable.” For the reasons dilated by this Court in the order dated 11.03.2008 as passed in the batch of cases led by CWP No. 36/2008 and further in the order passed today in CWP No. 37/2008, this writ petition is required to be, and is, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. MK