Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE defendant -petitioner, facing a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profits as filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, has filed this writ petition against the order dated 22.05.2007 (Annex.5) as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta City rejecting his application seeking to amend the written statement to take the pleadings that for the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') having been enacted, the suit for eviction could be maintained only before the Rent Tribunal and eviction could be ordered only on the grounds contained in Section 9 of the Act of 2001.
(2.) THE learned Trial court has rejected the application for amendment with the observations that the suit has been filed under the Transfer of Property Act; and the Act of 2001 has only repealed the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950') and even if the provisions of the Act of 2001 have been applied to the Merta area from 22.02.2006, only the suits filed under the Act of 1950 would be affected and not the present suit filed under the Transfer of Property Act; and that by permitting the amendment, the very nature of the suit would be changed. This writ petition was entertained on 23.07.2007 and notices were ordered to be issued; yet this Court rejected the prayer for stay of further proceedings in the suit with the following order: It was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a look at the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 1 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 would show that the Act was made applicable in the first instance to such municipal area which were comprising district head -quarter in the State, and later to such other municipal areas which were having population exceeding 50000 as per 1991 census as the State Government may by notification in the official gazette specify from time to time. Then by subsequent amendment this requirement of 50000 population has been deleted, and therefore, the amended provision does not require population of 50000 but then a separate notification in the official gazette making the Act applicable to such other municipality as may be specified from time to time is very much required to be issued which in the present case has not been issued, for the area comprised in the municipality where the property in question is situated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, thereupon, submits that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order holding that since the suit has been filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, and the Rent Control Act does not make any provision governing the pending litigation, therefore, the present suit is to be decided by that Court only, and according to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. In my view, the order impugned may not be happily worded but then the learned trial court meant to proceed with the trial under Transfer of Property act only because the provisions of Rent Control Act has not made application to the area where the property in question is situated. In these circumstances I do not find any ground to stay the proceedings. The stay petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that if during pendency of the suit, new Rent Control Act is made applicable to the area where the property in question is situate, it will be open to the parties to revive the application. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial most expeditiously.
(3.) THE plaintiffs -respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have appeared in response to the show cause notice; and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains meritless and deserves to be dismissed.;