- (1.) BOTH the learned counsels at bar submit that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision of Larger Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Bhag Chand Vs. Additional District Judge, No.5 Kota & Ors., reported in 2009 C.J. (Rent Control), 1 and later the view was taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ahmed Faruq & Ors. Vs. Jai Kishan & Ors. (S.B.C.F.A. No. 386/2009, decided on 19.08.2010). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment following the judgment in the case of Bhag Chand (supra) reads as under:
(2.) HOWEVER, in Bhagchand's case (supra), a Bench of this court made a reference for consideration of the following questions by the Larger Bench: "(1) Whether Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has its overriding effect on Section 32 (3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.; (2) Whether the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard or provisional rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which have been saved by Section 32 (3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, will be governed by the provisions of the Old Act of 1950, after coming into force of the New Act of 2001, or will be governed by the provisions of the New Act of 2001 as Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950, having been impliedly repealed, by virtue of Section 29 of the New Act of 2001 as held by the Division Bench in Kamal Kishore's case (supra)?" 10. After due consideration, the Larger Bench has answered the question no.2 (supra) in terms that by virtue of provisions of Section 32 (3) (a) of the New Act, all the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard rent and provisional rent u/s 6 and 7 of the Old Act would be governed by the provisions of Old Act despite coming into force of New Act of 2001 and not by provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the New Act, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Kamal Kishore's case (supra). 11. In view of the law laid down by the Larger Bench in Bhagchand's case (supra), the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is not sustainable in eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial court for adjudication after a fresh trial . 12. Accordingly, the appeals succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.7.08 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.) No.3, Jodhpur is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for adjudication afresh after due trial in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sangeet Lodha), J. Accordingly, the present first appeal under Section 96 CPC is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 84/07 (54/02) (Smt. Ratan Daga & another vs. Babulal) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned trial court for deciding the suit afresh and determination of standard rent under the Act of 1950. The learned trial is directed to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned trial court on 17.09.2012. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.;