Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners against order dt. 23.2.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nasirabad, District Ajmer (for short 'the trial Court') whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants has been dismissed. Aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners in a suit for eviction instituted by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioners-defendants in the year 2005 under the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950'). Objection was raised by the defendants-petitioners about maintainability of the said suit on the premise that by virtue of Sec. 32 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001'), the Act of 1950 was repealed and, therefore, the suit for eviction under that Act could not be maintained. Application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dt. 23.2.2015 on the premise that earlier also a similar application was moved by the defendants-petitioners on 05.01.2006 and the same was dismissed vide detailed order dt. 1.2.2006 on the premise that the disputed property was situated in cantonment area of Nasirabad and the trial Court rejected that application upholding the argument of the plaintiffs-respondents that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Chandra Kala vs. Smt. Jeewani, 1987 RLW 301, only the Central Government was competent to extend the applicability of the Act of 1950 and the same was extended by notification issued by the Central Government to the cantonment area of Nasirabad. The old Act of 1950 shall continue to apply and therefore, the suit would be maintainable.

2. Ms. Rekha Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Act of 1950 was extended to the cantonment area of Nasirabad by virtue of notification issued by the Central Government under Sec. 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws), Act, 1957 (for short the Act of 1957). Once the act of 1950 stood repealed by the Act of 2001, new enactment has come to occupy the field with regard to disputes between the landlord and tenant, but the same has still not been extended to cantonment area of Nasirabad. Learned trial Court was not justified in holding the suit filed under the provisions of the Act of 1950 as maintainable. It is argued that merely because a similar application was earlier rejected by order dt. 1.2.2006 by the trial Court, that would not be a reason for not entertaining the application subsequently filed by the petitioners-defendants, may be on the same premise because this question goes to root of the case. The defendants are not estopped from filing similar application again because there can be no estoppel against the statute. Learned counsel argued that judgment of this Court in Smt. Chandra Kala (supra) has been misconstrued and misapplied by the trial Court. Intact, in that case, it was held that after the original Act of 1950 was extended to cantonment area and subsequently, that Act was amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975, the amended provisions would net automatically apply to the cantonment area unless there was a fresh notification issued by the Central Government under Sec. 3 thereabout. Even otherwise, eviction suit in the present case was filed in the year 2005, almost four years after the repeal of the Act of 1950.

3. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Gupta and Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed the revision petition and submitted that question raised by the petitioners-defendants having already been decided by the trial Court vide earlier order dated 01.02.2006, same question could not be again allowed to be agitated. The defendants-petitioners are estopped from agitating same issue again and the revision petition would be barred by principle of res-judicata. It is argued that once the Act of 1950 was applied to the cantonment area