Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxmichand vs Civil Judge(S.D.),Bhadra & Anr on 11 August, 2008
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:: O R D E R ::
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1525/2006 Laxmi Chand Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhadra & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER :: 11th August 2008
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Bheemkant Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Bhansali, for the respondent.
The matter has been placed on board on an application (I.A. No. 7874/2008) whereby the contesting respondent has sought early hearing of this writ petition with the submission that the issue involved herein already stands concluded with other decisions of this Court. The application is not opposed and is hereby allowed. At the request, and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up for consideration today itself.
This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.02.2006 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhadra in the suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profits (Civil Original Suit No.23/2004) whereby an application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was disallowed. By the said application, the defendant-petitioner wanted to take the pleading in the written statement that 2 operation of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'/'the Act') having been extended to all the municipal areas by the amendment dated 20.01.2006, it stands extended to the area in question i.e., the township of Bhadra also and hence, the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court. The learned Trial Court has refused the prayer for such an amendment with the observations that the requisite notification in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001 extending its operation to the area in question has yet not been issued. The learned Trial Court has observed that the suit in question being a matter under the Transfer of Property Act, the proposed amendment would lead to unnecessary complications. The order as passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality.
In the case of Rampal Vs. All Brahmin Swarnkar Panchayat & Ors., reported in 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1362, this Court did not allow the prayer for similar nature amendment for the fundamental reason that in the absence of the notification as required by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001, it could not be said that the Act had become applicable to the area in question.
Further, on 07.03.2008, while rejecting a batch of petitions led by S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 06974/2007 (def): Bhanwarlal Vs. Rajendra Prasad and affirming the orders rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that 3 were made with reference to the said amendment to the Act of 2001 suggesting as if by such amendment itself, the Act stands extended to the area in question, this Court thus pointed out incorrectness of such a proposition with reference to the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 2001 and the decision in Rampal's case (supra):
"....and sub-section (2) of Section 1 after its amendment reads as under:-
"(2) It shall extend in first instance to such of the municipal areas which are comprising the District Headquarters in the State and later on to such of the other municipal areas as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time."
A bare look at the provision aforesaid makes it clear that mere amendment to the provisions of the Act of 2001 is not decisive of the matter because operation of the Act to any area whereto it is extendable depends on issuance of notification by the State Government as required by sub section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001.
This Court in the case of Rampal Vs. All Brahmin Swarnkar Panchayat & Ors. [2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1363] has referred to the aforesaid provisions of the Act and observed:
''9. In my view, thus, on the reading of the consequently amended sub-section(2) also, it cannot be said that the Act is applicable to the municipal area of Merta City, in absence of any notification, published in Official gazette, specifying the Act to have become applicable to this area. In that view of the matter, though for different reason, I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order."
(Underlining supplied for emphasis) 4 In view of the specific requirement of Section 1(2) of the Act of 2001 and for the view taken by this Court in Rampal's case (supra), the plea as taken by the petitioners remains untenable for want of requisite notification extending the Act to the area in question. Thus, the impugned orders call for no interference." With the decisions aforesaid, the question is no more res integra that for want of notification by the State Government as required by sub-section (2) of its Section 1, the Act of 2001 does not extend to the municipal areas referred therein.
The prayer for amendment as made by the petitioner in the application (Annex.3) turns out to be baseless particularly when it is not the case of the petitioner that the requisite notification under the said sub-section (2) of Section 1, extending the operation of the Act of 2001 to the township of Bhadra, has been issued. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned calls for no interference.
The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI],J.
Praveen