IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction of tenant – Tenant does not have a vested right under Rent Control legislation but it has only a protective right – Such right can be withdrawn at any time.

JUDGMENT

By way of instant first appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant-defendant-tenant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.85/2007 (71/2005) by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Beawar, whereby and whereunder civil suit for rent and eviction filed by respondent-plaintiff-landlord has been decreed and respondent-plaintiff has been held entitled to get the vacant possession of rented premises with due rent of thirteen months as also for mesne profits @ Rs.250/- per month from the date of suit till recovery of possession.

2. The relevant facts of present case as culled out from the record are that in respect of rented premises, one room and inside kothari (dark room) situated at first floor in property Municipal No.5/167 (new No.1) at Nagar Parishad, Beawar, respondent-plaintiff instituted present suit for eviction on 12.08.2005 stating inter alia that appellant-defendant is tenant in the rented premises @ Rs.250/- per month and after purchasing the property by plaintiff, he has attorned the plaintiff as his landlord. It was stated that defendant-tenant paid last rent for month of 10.06.2004 to 09.07.2004 vide receipt No.67 dated 10.07.2004 and thereafter, rent w.e.f 10.07.2004 onwards has not been paid. It was stated that defendant-tenant has caused damages to the rented premises and therefore, plaintiff, through legal notice dated 11.07.2005 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, has terminated the tenancy of defendant. It was stated that legal notice dated 11.07.2005 has been served upon defendant-tenant, who sent reply notice dated 15.07.2005 through his advocate and thereafter, plaintiff served one rejoinder notice dated 23.07.2005 upon defendant. It was further stated that since defendant-tenant did not agree to vacate the rented premises nor paid due rent, therefore, present civil suit for eviction was instituted to get vacant possession of rented premises from tenant along with due arrears of rent @ Rs.250/- per month from 10.07.2004 to 09.08.2005, it means for thirteen months and for the subsequent period from the date of suit, plaintiff claimed mesne profits @ Rs.3000/- per month.

3. It is worthy to note here that earlier provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short “the Act of 1950”) was made applicable on the rented premise situated within the Municipal Council, Beawar vide notification dated 27.11.1957, w.e.f. 27.11.1957 but later on, the Act of 1950 was repealed from the date of notifying the new act i.e. the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It may be noted that by virtue of Section 32(1) of the Act of 2001 “Repeal and savings”, it is clearly stated that Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act No.17 of 1950) shall stand repealed w.e.f. the date notified under Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of this Act. Thus, the Act of 1950 had been repealed after coming into force of the Act of 2001. It may be noted that as per provisions of the new act i.e. the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 shall made applicable in first instance to such of Municipal areas which are comprising District Headquarters in the State and applicability of the Act of 2001, to other municipal areas was subject to notification by the State Government, specify from time to time. Therefore, at the time of institution of the present eviction suit i.e. 12.08.2005, rented premises situated in municipal area of Beawar, since no notification to extend the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 in Municipal areas of Beawar, was issued by the State Government, therefore, the Act of 2001 was applicable and as far as the old rent control act i.e. the Act of 1950 is concerned, the same had repealed. Thus at the time of institution of the present eviction suit, no State Rent Control Act was in operation in the Municipal areas of Beawar and