The new Rent Control Act does not apply retrospectively to pending suits, and jurisdiction is determined by the law in effect at the time of filing.

Order :

1. The petitioner/defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Didwana, District Didwana-Kuchaman, in Civil Suit No.46/2022, whereby application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit against the petitioner/defendant before the learned Civil Judge, Didwana on 01.09.2019 under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act . In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner/defendant after being served with the summons filed his written statement on 06.03.2020 while denying the averments in the suit. As per the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed.

3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 13.09.2024 seeking to amend the written statement filed, whereby the petitioner sought to add pleading with respect to non-maintainability of the suit in view of provisions of new Act, inasmuch as the Civil Judge left with no jurisdiction to hear and try the suits relating to dispute between the land and tenant and that on 07.085.2023, Didwana was declared as independent District and thus provisions of new Rent Control Act, 2001 were made effective. The petitioner/defendant thus prayed to add paragraphs 13 and 14 in his written statement.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed reply to the said application and denied the averments made therein.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter heard arguments of the parties and vide impugned order dated 12.11.2024 (Annex.6) proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner/defendant.

6. Aggrieved by order dated 12.11.2024, the petitioner/defendant has preferred the instant writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has seriously erred in passing the order impugned, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has not considered the reasons submitted in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of passing of impugned order denying petitioner to raise objection with respect to maintainability of the suit, the petitioner’s legal right has been infringed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property is situated in town Didwana and the suit seeking eviction was filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act , however, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001 has come into effect in town Didwana from 07.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001, the suit under the Rajasthan Premises (Rajasthan Control and Eviction) Act, 1950 have been saved, however, the suit filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act have not been saved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of coming into force of the new Rent Control Act, 2001 in town Didwana, a legal right has been created in favour of petitioner to raise objection before the civil court to not to hear the matter as the same is now having no jurisdiction to try the suit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the amendment sought in the written statement were germane to the controversy involved and, therefore, denial thereof would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that town of Didwana became a District headquarter from 07.08.2023 by Notification issued by the competent Government, of course, after filing the written statement, which was a subsequent event after commencing the trial of the suit and thus