Point of Law: Tenant enjoys statutory protection as long as statute remain in force and is applicable to him.

ORDER :

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh whereby the appeal as preferred by the appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh has been affirmed and the suit filed by the respondents for eviction has been decreed.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the present second appeal involves the most crucial substantial question of law as to whether the present suit itself was maintainable in view of the fact that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1950') had been repealed and the new Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 had come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the suit was preferred on 07.10.2003 after the date the Act of 1950 having been repealed and the new Rent Control Act, 2001 having come into effect. Therefore, the present suit filed under the provisions of the Act of 1950, admittedly, could not have been entertained by the Trial Court and further could not have been affirmed by the first appellate Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya Vs. Smt. Ramkawari Devi Jhawar; reported in 2013 (3) RLW 1915 (Raj.).

3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the above stated position of law. He is not in a position even to controvert the position as settled by this Court in catena of judgments:

1. Vimal Chand Vs. Shri Ram Ballabh; S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.109/2009 (decided on 10.08.2011).

2. Ram Narain & Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi & Ors.; reported in 2010 (3) RLW (Raj.) 2426.

3. Nand Kishore & Anr. Vs. Vishwanath Kayal; S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.9/2012 (21.06.2012).

4. Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya (supra).

4. In view of the above submissions, Admit. No need to issue notice as the respondents are represented by their counsel.

5. The following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal:

"Whether both the learned courts below are justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents on 07.10.2003 under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 which suit itself was not maintainable inasmuch as the Act of 1950 itself was repealed w.e.f. 01.04.2003 vide Section 32 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001?"

6. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as the position of law is settled on the issue, the appeal be decided today itself in view of the said position of law.

7. Therefore, the matter has been heard finally on the above question of law.

8. Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya (supra) was a matter wherein the objection regarding maintainability of the suit in terms of the new Act having coming into effect was not raised before both the learned Courts below and it was only for the first time before the second appellate Court that the question was raised. While dealing with the aspect whether the new Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 would apply even to the municipal areas whereby the said Act had not been made applicable on that date, the Court, while relying upon all the earlier judgments on the issue, as mentioned above opined as under:

"9. Thus, Sub-sec.(1) of Section 32 of the New Act clearly provides that the Old Act shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-sec.(3) of Section 1 of the New Act. It is pertinent to note that this provision does not provide that the Old Act shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the New Act i.e. when the provisions of the New Act are extended or made applicable to different Municipal areas of the State of Rajasthan including the District Headquarters. The legislative intention