1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Ram Narayan Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) Abu Road and Anr. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5535/2007 ......... Date of Order : 02/07/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR BY THE COURT Mr. B.K.Bhatnagar for the petitioner. Mr. R.R.Nagori for the respondent. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.7.2007 Annex.3 passed by the respondent No.1 Civil Judge (J.D.), Abu Road dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 filed a suit before the respondent No.1 for recovery of rent. The respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to 2 entertain and try the suit as the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and it came to be amended by the Rajasthan Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 extending its application to all other municipal areas and therefore, by Amendment Act, 2005, the Rent Control Act has been made applicable to the area of Abu Road. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the State Govt. by notification in official Gazette has not specified the area of Abu Road making the provisions of Rent Control Act applicable to that area. Counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in Rampal Vs. All Brahmin Swarnkar Panchayat and Ors. 2007 (4) W.L.C. (Raj.) 532 wherein similar controversy came to be considered and this Court held that unless the State Govt. by a notification in official Gazette specifies other municipal area making applicable Rent Control Act, it cannot be said that the Rent Control Act has been made applicable to all municipal areas of the State. In that case, it was sought to be argued that there has been amendment in the new Rent Control Act, 2001, being Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005, whereby in sub-section (2) of Section 1, the expression having a population exceeding fifty thousand as per 1991 Census has been deleted, and this amendment has been brought into effect vide notification dated 30.2.2006, with immediate effect, and therefore, since the 3 requirement of fifty thousand population has been deleted, the Rent Control Act, 2001 obviously becomes applicable to the Merta municipal area as well. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not accepted by this Court and this Court observed as under :- “I am afraid that is not correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 1 (2). For ready reference, I may quote the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001, which reads as under:- “(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 having a population exceeding fifty thousand as per 1991 Census as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time.” From out of the above provision, after deletion of the words deleted by Second Amendment Act, the remaining part of sub- section (2) would read as under :- “(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.” On these premises, this Court held that on the 4 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 my view, the controversy is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rampal Vs. All Brahmin Swarnkar Panchayat and Ors. (supra), and therefore, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 4182/2007 IN S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5535/07 ......... Date of Order : 02/07/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.K.Bhatnagar for the petitioner. Mr. R.R.Nagori for the respondent. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp