( 1 ) ALL these aforementioned civil second appeals and civil revisions involve identical question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCSA. No. 139/09 "ram Narayan vs. Smt. Asha devi" as a leading case.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals and revisions are that the plaintiff respondent smt. Asha Devi filed a civil suit against firm Ram Narayan Om Prakash for eviction of the disputed premises after serving notice under Section 106 r/w Section 114 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act dated 6. 10. 2003. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16. 8. 2007 passed by Additional civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 4, Bikaner (for short the trial Court' hereinafter) against which, one Ram Narayan the appellant herein filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short the first appellate Court' hereinafter) impleading Smt. Asha Devi as respondent. In the appeal, the other partner of the firm namely Om Prakash has not been impleaded. Be that as it may, the issue of non-joinder was not joined by the respondent before the first appellate Court. The appeal came to be dismissed by the first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 13. 4. 09. Hence the second appeal.

( 3 ) IN this second appeal, a specific question has been raised as to whether the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Old Act of 1950" hereinafter) does not stand repealed in those areas where the State Govt, has not made the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 applicable. This Court formulated the following issues on 15. 7. 2009:-

" (1) Whether the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has been made applicable to whose of the State of Rajasthan vide notification dated 21. 3. 2003 or it is applicable upon the municipal areas which are comprising the district headquarters? (2) Whether the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 has come into force upon the municipal area or other areas of the State other than district headquarters under the notification dt. 21. 3. 2003? (3) Whether in view of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 1 of the rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, State is required to issue two notifications to give effect to the provisions of the Act or notification dated 21. 3. 2003 covers all the areas?

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the judgment and decree impugned passed by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court.

( 5 ) MR. R. K. Thanvi,mr. Narendra Thanvi, Mr. V. K. Agarwal counsel appearing for the appellants as also Mr. B. L. Purohit and Mr. CP. Soni counsel for revisionists, contended that the Old Act of 1950 has not been repealed in those areas where the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 (for short "the New Act of 2001' hereinafter) was not made applicable which came into force w. e. f. 1. 4. 2003. In all these appeals and the revisions, the area involved is that the new Act of 2001 has not been made applicable even after repealing the Old act of 1950 by Section 32 of the New Act of 2001. The Old Act 1950 came to be repealed by Section 32 of the New Act 2001. Section 32 (1) of the New Act, 2001 provides that 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. Section 1 of the New act, 2001 reads as under:-

"section 1. Short title, extent and commencement.- (l) 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 area as the State Govt, may, be notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time. (3) It shall come into force with effe