After the repeal of a rent control act and the enactment of a new rent control act, the rights of the parties in the relationship of landlord and tenant are to be governed by the new act.

1. - Appealed by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, 'the learned trial Court'), the petitioners have laid the instant revision petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'). The learned trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C.

2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that the petitioner (landlord) instituted a suit for eviction against the non-petitioner (defendant) on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity and default in payment of arrears of rent. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.3.2002. While granting the decree for eviction, the learned trial Court found that the reasonable and bona fide necessity of the petitioner is genuine, and therefore, he is entitled for a decree of eviction. So far as the ground of default is concerned, the learned trial Court has extended the benefit of first default to the non-petitioner (defendant).

3. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the non-petitioner (defendant) preferred an appeal before the learned. Additional District judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (appellate Court) and ultimately the said appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.10.2004.

4. Being disgruntled with the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court, the non-petitioner (defendant) availed yet another remedy of appeal- inasmuch as on her behalf a second appeal was laid before this Court being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 578/2004. This Court after hearing the arguments on second appeal dismissed the same vide its judgment dated 25.1.2005 and directed the non-petitioner (defendant) to vacate the premises by end of 2006 i.e. upto 31.12.2006.

5. As per description of the premises, it is one flat having two rooms, one room facing east and another room facing west with Baramda and latrine-bath.

6. As per the averments contained in the revision petition, the non-petitioner (defendant) handed over the vacant possession within the stipulated period and at the time of handing over the possession of the premises, the same was in a very dilapidated condition. As the petitioner (decree-holder) was sick, he has sifted to the ground floor and later on he passed away on 22.2.2008.

7. The petitioner has also, inter alia, averred in the revision petition that before the learned trial Court on behalf of non-petitioner an application under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), wherein the non-petitioner has prayed for restoration of his possession in the disputed premises on the ground that the said premises are not used by the petitioner (plaintiff) for last nine months.

8. The averments contained in the application were denied by the petitioner (landlord). During the pendency of the proceedings, the original plaintiff- Mohammad Usman expired and the present petitioners were brought on record. On behalf of the petitioners before the learned trial Court an endeavour was made for persuading the learned Court below to dismiss the application of the non- petitioner by invoking Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. In the application, the petitioners have stated with clarity and precision that as the Act of 1950 has already been repealed and therefore, this application is not maintainable.

9. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after repealing of the Act of 1950 and promulgation of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001'), the petition under Section 15 laid by the non-petitioner is not at all maintainable and is liable to the dismissed. Lea