Honble RAFIQ, J.–The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1-4-2006 passed by Rent Tribunal, Kota whereby his application for dismissing the petition filed by the respondent landlord for eviction of the petitioners tenant from their premises on account of personal bona fide was rejected. Application was filed on the ground that the landlord had already earlier filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of default which was dismissed on 10-4-2003 and appeal there against was pending before this Court.

(2). I have heard Shri Mahesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3). Shri Mahesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Rent Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of Section 32 (3)(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 according to which when already earlier suit / appeal between the landlord and tenant in regard to tenanted premises was pending at the time of enforcement of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, (for short- `the Act) the landlord was required to obtain permission of the Court for filing fresh application for eviction under Section 6 and 9 of the Act. In the present case, the landlord initiated the proceedings for ejection of the tenant in relation to the same disputed property for which the appeal was presently pending before this Court. The petition was therefore not maintainable and was liable to be rejected.

(4). The provisions of Section 32 of the Act, on interpretation of which hinges the decision of this petition, is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:-

32. Repeal and savings-(1) The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No.17 of 1950) shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-section (3) of section 1 of this Act.

(2) The repeal under sub-section (1) shall not affect-

(a) anything duly done or suffered under the enactment so repealed; or

(b) any right, title, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the enactment so repealed; or

(c) any fine, penalty or punishment incurred or suffered under the provisions of the enactment so repealed.

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-section (1)-

(a) all applications, suits or other proceedings under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of this Act before any court shall be continued and disposed of, in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, as if the repealed Act had continued in force and this Act had not been enacted. However, the plaintiff within a period of one hundred and eight days of coming into force of this Act shall be entitled to withdraw any suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under the repealed Act with liberty to file fresh petition in respect of the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any other proceeding under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and for the purposes of limitation such petition shall if it is filed within a period of two hundred and seventy days from the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the suit which was so withdrawn and in case of withdrawal of appeal or other proceeding, on the date on which the suit, out of which such appeal or proceeding originated, was filed;

(b) the provision for appeal under the repealed Act shall continue in force in respect of applications, suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder;

(c) all prosecutions instituted under the provisions of the repealed Act shall be effective and disposed of in accordance with such repealed law:

(d) any rule or notification made or issued under the repealed Act and in force on the date of commencement of this Act shall continue to govern the pending cases.

(5). Reference in the present case has been made to sub-section 3 (1)(a) of Section 32 of the Act which mandates that if the landlord wanted to file a fresh petition for eviction of the tenant, he was required to obtain permission of the Court prior to doing so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document