Judgment 1. The respondent landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.38 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli to evict the tenants petitioners. Pending the R.C.O.P., the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.122 of 1994 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, on the ground that the petitioners had not paid the rent in respect of the premises in question. The Rent Controller directed the tenants/petitioners to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.100 per month from the date of the petition, till August, 1994 and to pay the said amount on or before 22.3.1998. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal in R.C.A.No.30 of 1995 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli. Before the appellate authority, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was questioned saying that after conversion of the Tirunelveli Municipality into the Corporation the Act has not been extended by a notification under the Act 18 of 1960. So, the said Act cannot be made applicable to the premises in question situate in the Corporation. The Appellate Authority rejected the contention of the tenants and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the above revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the premises in question is situated of Thimmarajapuram village which was subsequently included in Tirunelveli Municipality, thereby the said Act was extended to the said village. Though the learned counsel tried to submit that even before issuing the notification with respect to the application of the provisions of the said Act to the said village the said R.C.O.P. was filed. It was not substantiated by giving relevant date with respect to the filing of the said R.C.O.P. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that after establishing the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, no notification was issued under the said Act 18 of 1960 so as to enable the petitioners to apply those provisions for the purpose of evicting the tenant under the said provisions. 5. It is not in dispute that under the Act 28 of 1994. 5. It is not in dispute that under the Act 28 of 1994. The Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation was established, and the Tirunelveli Municipality constitutes the city of Tirunelveli for the purpose of the said Act, It is also not disputed that the premises in question was within the Tirunelveli Municipality and thereby the said Act 18 of 1960 would apply to the same. Now, we have to see merely because the said area has been renamed as Corporation, whether independent notification has to be issued, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sec.1(2) (a) (i) of the Act 18 of 1960 reads as follows: “This Act (except sub-Sec (2) of Sec.3) shall apply to the City of Madras (and to the City of Madurai ) and to all Municipalities constituted or deemed to have been constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920) in the State. Provided that the Government may, by notification, direct that this Act shall cease to apply to any municipality specified therein or to the City of Madras (or to the City of Madurai) from such date as may be mentioned in the notification.” From the above it will be very clear that the said Act will apply to all the municipalities to be constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. From the proviso to the abovesaid section it will be clear that only if the Government wants, it can direct that the Act shall cease to apply to the particular area. It is not in dispute that before passing of the Act 28 of 1994, as per the said Sec.1(1) (a) (i), the provisions of the Act 18 of 1960 did apply to the premises in question. The Municipality has been reconstituted as Corporations. But, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act 18 of 1960 cease to operate. Once the Act 18 of 1960 is made applicable to the particular area, it can be removed only either by notification as stated in the proviso to Sec.1(2)(a)(i) of the said Act or by a statute. Act 28 of 1994 does not take away the applicability of the provisions of the Act 18 of 1960. So, the applicability of the Act 18 of 1960 would continue until operation is stopped by a valid notification or specific legislation to that effect. Act 28 of 1994 does not take away the applicability of the provisions of the Act 18 of 1960. So, the applicability of the Act 18 of 1960 would continue until operation is stopped by a valid notification or specific legislation to that effect. It is well settled, wherever possible placing an interpretation of a statute which introduces an element of uncertainty about the identity of law applicable in a given area has to be avoided. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on Sec.1(2) (c) of the Act 18 of 1960 which reads as follows: “The Government may, by notification, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act except Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec 3, to any other area in the State with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, and may cancel or modify any such notification.” The abovesaid section will apply only to the area for which the Act does not apply at all. In the present case, the Act 18 of 1960 was made applicable to the premises for which there is no dispute. When the Act was made applicable to the premises in question, pursuant to a statute, it cannot be said that merely on the basis of the Act 28 of 1994 a fresh notification has to be issued to bring the area within the mischief of Act 18 of 1960. Such a submission cannot be counteanced. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in this revision. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly, No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.9116 of 1997 is closed. 8. The tenant is given one month time to deposit the rent upto date.