1. - Each of these eight revision petitions involving similar nature issue is barred by limitation by a few days (31- 34 days); and each of the petitioners has moved application for condonation of delay stating a similar nature ground that for want of proper legal advice and for his being a layman, could not immediately take requisite steps for assailing the order in question.

2. Having regard to the circumstances, ignoring the delay, the matters have been considered on merits.

3. The petitioners are tenants in the premises situated at Sri Dungargarh and are facing suits for eviction filed by their respective landlords. The petitioners moved similar nature applications under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the submissions that earlier the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act'/'the Act of 2001') was not extended to the area in question i.e., the municipal area of Sri Dungargarh but, with its amendment under the notification dated 20th January 2006, the Act of 2001 stands extended to the said municipal area also and, therefore, the suits as filed for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act are not competent. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the applications with the observations, inter-alia, that no such notification was placed before the Court showing that the Act of 2001 has been extended to the area in question. The orders aforesaid are sought to be questioned in these revision petitions.

4. The contention as sought to be urged on behalf of the defendants-petitioners remains fundamentally baseless for the fact that no such notification has been shown whereby operation of the provisions of the Act of 2001 stands extended to the area in question. Section 1 of the Act of 2001 before its amendment read as under:-

"Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement-

(1) This Act may be called the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

(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.

(3) It shall come into force with effect from such date, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint."

5. In view of the notification published on 21.03.2003 as required by sub-section (3) of Section 1, the Act of 2001 came into force with effect from 01.04.2003. Thereafter, sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 that became effective from 22.02.2006 under the notification published in the Official Gazette. The expression "having a population exceeding fifty thousand as per 1991 Census" was deleted by the said Second Amendment Act of 2005 and sub-section (2) of Section 1 after its amendment 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 as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time."

6. A bare look at the provision aforesaid makes it clear that mere amendment to the provisions of the Act of 2001 is not decisive of the matter because operation of the Act 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.

7. This Court in the case of Rampal v. All Brahmin Swarnkar Panchayat & Ors., 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1363 has referred to the aforesaid provisions of the Act and observed:

"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