Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal arising out of an execution case.
(2.) A decree was obtained finally from the then Jaipur High Court for ejectment of certain premises which were situated at Nim-ka-Thana. The decree was of the 24th March, 1947. An execution petition was made by the decree-holder on the 7th of April, 194? in the court of the Munsif, Nim-ka-Thana. During the pendency of the execution petition on the 15th of October, 1947, the Jaipur Rent Control Order of 1947 came into force. Sec. 11 (2) of the said Order provided inter alia that if an application for the execution of a decree for ejectment passed in any suit or appeal is pending on the date of the coming into force of the order or is made after the commencement of the Order with the prayer for recovery of possession the court shall stay such suit, appeal or application and require the plaintiff or the decree-holder; the case may be, to produce a certificate under clause 8 from the Controller, and if such certificate is not production within the period fixed for the purpose or within such extended period as the court may from time to time allow, the appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be dismissed, but no order of the dismissal of an application for execution shall operate so as to nullify the decree which shall remain executable after the order is withdrawn. The judgment-debtor raised an objection on the basis of sec. 11 (2) that the decree-holder should be directed to produce a certificate of the Rent Controller, to enable him to prosecute his execution petition for ejectment of the premises. On the 15th of March, 1951, the objection of the judgment-debtor was ruled out by the learned Munsif and an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor was also dismissed by the District judge, Sikar, on the 15th of September 1951. The judgment-debtor has come to this court in second appeal and it has been urged on his behalf that by virtue of sec. 27 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act of 1950 the execution petition or the objection raised by the judgment-debtor should be disposed of in accordance with the Jaipur Rent Control Order of 1947, because this case was a pending case at the time the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act came into force. The point which has been urged proceeds on the assumption that sec. 27 (2) of the Rajasthan Act envisages within its scope all suits or applications whatsoever which were pending at the time the Rajasthan Act. came into force. This assumption, however, is not in keeping with the spirit of the Act. The provision of sec, 27 (2) of the Rajasthan Act that pending cases shall be disposed of in accordance with "such law" makes it evident that the provision of sec. 27 (2) was intended to govern such pending cases only which had been initiated under the provisions of the laws that were repealed by the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1950. Had it not been so, this provision would be redundant because the laws which were still good had to be applied to the cases which were pending. It may further be observed that by the Rajasthan Act the Jaipur Rent Control Order was repealed and the Rajasthan Act thereafter was not extended to Nim-ka-Thana where the premises in dispute in this case are situated, There is now no necessity for the production of any certificate for the eviction of the premises situated at places to which Rajasthan. Act does not apply. This view finds support from the decision of this Court in Ramnath vs. Kaluram (1) where it was held that Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, having been repealed by the Rajasthan Premises control of Rent and Eviction) Act of 1950 and the provision of the latter Act having not been applied to the area in question there remained no authority in existence for granting a certificate to the plaintiff in respect of property situated in such area, By virtue of the new Act there was no Controller for such area to whom the plaintiff could approach for certificate and the obtaining of certificate had therefore become physically impossible. It was therefore not necessary for the plaintiff to file it. The intention, it was further observed, of the Rajasthan Act. was clear that it did not regulate the proceedings relating to ejectment or fixation of rent in places to which it was not extended. There is no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and this appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. .;