JUDGMENT - N. P. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.:---The dispute before me is in respect of the possession of a theatre situated at Basmath town in Parbhani District. It is owned by Narottam s/o Jainarayan Kabra, respondent No.1 in this revision application. In the year 1964 Daulatrao, respondent No.2 took this theatre on rent from the original owner. Respondent No.3, Laxman, later joined Daulatrao as partner. Four suits, Regular Civil Suit Nos. 44/1970; 134/1972; 128/1973; and 19/1975, had to be filed by the landlord for the recovery of the rent as Daulatrao did not pay rent. An application was moved by Narottam, the owner of the property, before the rent Controller, Hingoli, for the possession of the suit theatre on the ground firstly that the tenant, Daulat, is wilful defaulter; secondly he has altered the suit premises to the detriment of the interest of the landlord; thirdly that he has introduced a sub-tenant, namely, Sheshappa s/o Narayan Rakhewar, petitioner before this Court. A preliminary objection was raised by defendant No.3 (petitioner in this revision application) before the Rent Controller that the Court of the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try this a case since the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Hyderabad Rent Act for the purpose of brevity) has no application to the town of Basmath. The learned Judge framed this as a preliminary point and arrived at a conclusion that Basmath is under the cover of the Hyderabad Rent Act and rejected the preliminary objection of defendant no. 3. He further held by his judgement dated 7th December , 1979 that the defendant no.1 is not a wilful defaulter and further held that the sub-tenancy was created in favour of defendant no. 3 by defendant no.1, but was pleased to observe that he subtenancy is with consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and, therefore, rejected the prayer for possession of the suit premises and dismissed the application by his order dated 7th December, 1979, in File No.75/RC/9/10. Aggrieve by this judgement and order, an appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Act by the landlord. Aggrieve by this judgement and order, an appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Act by the landlord. This appeal, begin Rent Control Appeal no.12/1979, was allowed by the District Judge, Parbhani, vide his judgment and order dated 19th October, 1985, holding that the defendant is a wilful defaulter but on other points he engatived the contentions raised by the appellant holding that the alterations made have not diminished the value of the suit premises and has not rendered it dangerous. He further held that the defendant no.3 is introduced in the premises without the permission of the plaintiff. He further held that the Hyderabad Rent Control Act is applicable to Basmath. Therefore, he allowed the appeal by his judgement and order dated 19th October, 1985 and he ordered that he defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession to the plaintiff on or before 1st January, 1986. 2. The present Revision Application No. 571/1985 was admitted by this Court and rule with interim stay to the execution of the Appellate Court's order dated 19th October, 1985, was granted on 29th October, 1985. 3. Shri D.Y. Lovekar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, has submitted three points for the consideration of this Court. Firstly, that the Hyderabad Rent Control Act is not applicable to Basmath town; secondly, it is not proved on evidence that the defendant No. 1 is a wilful defaulter; and thirdly, that the sub-letting of the theatre to the revision petitioner-defendant No. 3 is with the consent of the landlord. It may be noted that the defendant No. 3 who is presently running the theatre was not originally party to the litigation but he was subsequently added on his application in the court of Rent controller. 4. In support of his contention, Shri Lovekar invited my attention to the provisions of the Hyderabad Rent Act and more particularly to sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act. 4. In support of his contention, Shri Lovekar invited my attention to the provisions of the Hyderabad Rent Act and more particularly to sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act. Section 1(3) reads as follows: "It shall apply to the areas specified in the schedule and to such other areas as the Government may, by notification, from time to time, direct." Shri Sewalikar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- landlord, has produced a xerox copy of the Hyderabad Government Gazette, dated 17th February, 1985 issued by the Revenue Department, containing two notifications dated 8th February, 1955 bearing Nos. 95/A4/235/54 and 96/A4/235/54. The first of these notifications, is applying the provisions of Hyderabad Rent Act to the area within the limits of Basmath City Municipality; and the second notification is designating the Deputy Collector of Hingoli Division as Controller to perform the functions of a Controller under the said Act in the area included within the limits of the Basmath City Municipality. Shri Lovekar has no dispute regarding publication of these notifications. Under Section 119 and 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956) it has been provided that he provisions of Part II effecting the territorial changes under the Act 37 of 1956 shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends. Section120 of the Act gives power to the Government within one year from the appointed day to adopt any of those laws or with such modification repeal or amend as may be necessary or expedient. Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 is quoted below : "120. Section120 of the Act gives power to the Government within one year from the appointed day to adopt any of those laws or with such modification repeal or amend as may be necessary or expedient. Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 is quoted below : "120. Power to adapt laws.---For the purpose of facilitating the application of any law in relation to any of the States (or Union territories) formed or territorially altered by the provisions of Part II, the appropriate Government may, before the expiration of the year from the appointed day, by order make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority." In exercise of the powers under section 120, the Government of Bombay has issued the Bombay Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects ) Order, 1956. This order was made and came into effect on the 1st of November, 1956. The Schedule to the Hyderabad Rent Act was substituted in this Adaptation of the Laws Order, 1956 and to the original 12 towns which were listed in Schedule, the towns of Bidar and Hingoli were added numbering the total areas to whom the Act applies to 14. It is the submission of Shri Lovekar that it will have to be held that by implication, the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, has repealed all notifications which were extending the application of Hyderabad Rent Act to the areas which are not included in the Schedule. Shri Lovekar further submits that the power given under section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, had given an opportunity to the State Government of the new State of Bombay to consider whether the areas to which the law was applied by erstwhile Government of Hyderabad by issuing notifications should be included in the Schedule or they should be allowed to stand as repealed by implication. Shri Lovekar submits that assuming that there is a notification applying the provisions of Act to the town of Basmath, only Bidar and Hingoli were added to the Schedule and, therefore, the intention of the Government which was exercising the legislative functions authorised by conditional legislation under section 120 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Government thought it fit not to extend the application to the township of Basmath and, therefore, the notification dated 8th February, 1955 stands repealed by implication. 5. Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Hyderabad rent Act firstly applies the provisions of the Act to certain areas which are included in the Schedule to the statute and it also delegates the legislative functions in respect of extension of the applicability of the Act to certain other areas of the State Government and prescribes that it shall apply to such other areas as the Government may, by notification, from time to time, direct. These are two distinct modes of application of laws because a Schedule to the State legislature or by the authority to whom such power is delegated for a limited period by specific provisions like section 120 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. But sub-section (3) itself gives a blanket power to the State Government to extend the provisions of the Act to some other area and if Government issues such notification, it shall be in force till it is not withdrawn by the State Government. The power to withdraw a notification will have to be inferred under the provisions of General Clauses Act since the Government has been given power to issue a notification by sub-section (3) of section 1. Therefore, at any time the State Government may extend the area of application or reduce the area of application if that areas covered only by notification and not by the Schedule annexed to the statute. But the application of the Act to an area included in the Schedule cannot be withdrawn by notification issued by state Government. This being the possession , merely adding something by alteration of Schedule by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, will not enable this Court to infer that the Government has by implication withdrawn the notification dated 8th February, 1955 or has repelled it. This being the possession , merely adding something by alteration of Schedule by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, will not enable this Court to infer that the Government has by implication withdrawn the notification dated 8th February, 1955 or has repelled it. Substitution of Schedule will only repeal original Schedule but it will not repeal notifications issued by State Government which are under distinct power. Adding Hingoli and Bidar would only amount to show that now the State Government has no power to withdraw the application of the Act in these towns unless the statue itself is amended but this is not the position so far as the areas which are covered only by notifications. Therefore, the contention of Shri Lovekar that the notification dated 8th Feb., 1955, applying the provisions of the Act within the limits; of Basmath City Municipality stands repealed by implication, will have to be rejected. Whatever notifications were issued under the old Act and under the Hyderabad Rent Act during the existence of the erstwhile State Government of Hyderabad shall continue to have the same effect because of the provisions of section 11 of the Bombay (Hyderabad Area) Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, section 11 of the order runs thus : "11. The provisions of this Order which adapt or modify any law so as to alter the manner in which , the authority by which, or the law under or in accordance with which, any powers are exercisable, shall not render invalid any notification, order, licence, permission, award, commitment, attachment, bye-law, rule or regulation duly made or issued , or anything duly done before the appointed day; and any such notification , order, licence, permission, award, commitment, attachment, bye-law, rule regulation or thing may be revoked, varied or undone in like manner, to the like extent and in the like circumstances as if it had been made, issued or done after the commencement of this Order by the Competent authority and under and in accordance with provision then applicable to such a case". Shri Sewalikar has invited my attention to the judgment of the Mysore High Court in the case of (Chanabasappa Shivappa v..Gurupadappa Murigappa others)1, A.I.R. 1958 Mysore 184 (V 45C 42). Shri Sewalikar has invited my attention to the judgment of the Mysore High Court in the case of (Chanabasappa Shivappa v..Gurupadappa Murigappa others)1, A.I.R. 1958 Mysore 184 (V 45C 42). Wherein the Mysore High Court has held that the notification which was in force immediately before the appointed day would still apply to that part of the State of Mysore which before its integration to the said State formed part of the State of Bombay. Therefore, it will not be necessary to reissue any notification extending the alterations under sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Hyderabad Rent Act. If the State Government of Hyderabad has exercised its powers under sub-section (3) of section 1 and extended the applications of the provision s of Hyderabad Rent Act to the areas in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad then those areas shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Hyderabad Rent Act even after they have become the parts of other States because of provisions part II of the Reorganisation Act, 1956 1, therefore, hold that the area in the Municipal limits of the Basmath town is covered by the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease ) Control Act, 1954. 6. Shri Lovekar then wanted to dispute the findings recorded regarding the defendant No.1 being a wilful defaulter. This is a finding of fact recorded on the basis of evidence before the Court and it is not the case that the finding was recorded without any evidence. Though the trial Court recorded a finding that the defendant No.1 is of fact are concerned has recorded the finding that the defendant No.1 is a wilful defaulter considering that the landlord had to file different suits and no rent was paid as stipulated by the Act. He has also taken a note of the fact that inspite of filing of the suit and decrees being passed, rent was not paid as stipulated by the defendant No.1 is a wilful recorded by the learned District Judge, Parbhani , will have to be confirmed. 7. Shri Sewalikar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, raised a contention as to the maintainability of the appeal before the learned District Judge and also revision before this Court. 7. Shri Sewalikar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, raised a contention as to the maintainability of the appeal before the learned District Judge and also revision before this Court. His submission is that the defendant No.3 being mere licencee allowed to run the theatre in the suit premises has no locus to challenge the finding recorded against the original tenant Daulatrao. He also submitted that the license creates no interest in the property and, therefore, revision petitioner -defendant No.3 could not be said to be an affected party and could not have filed an appeal before the District Judge and this revision before this Court. 8. Since I am dismissing the revision, on merits, I do not think that it is necessary to go into question of locus of the petitioner at this stage, particularly looking to the fact that an appeal was filed and it was decided on merit by the District Judge and the judgment is challenged in this Court. 9. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed, However, looking to the fact that the petitioner is a lisensee running a theatre it would be desirable to grant him sufficient time to vacate the premises. The petitioner defendant No.3 is granted time to vacate the suit premises till 1st of October, 1991 subject to furnishing of an undertaking in this Court within three weeks from today that he will not part the possession of the theatre to a third party, shall not diminish the value of the original property as was leased to defendant No.1, shall pay the rent regularly to the landlord and shall pay all the arrears either to the landlord within a period of four weeks from today and obtain his receipt; or deposit in the Court of Rent Controller at Hingoli . Not order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----