JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The only question sought to be raised in this second appeal is whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession of the property in dispute in view of the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 2. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the premises in dispute are situate at Sarahan, which was an urban area (under Notified Area Committee) prior to the year 1994 and thereafter under Nagar Panchayat till February 20, 1995. It was only by the notification dated 21st February, 1995 that the Nagar Panchayat was abolished and Sarahan area was transferred to Gram Panchaya Sarahan and, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 310 of the H.P. Municipal Act, this area would be deemed to be an urban area for the purpose of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act as obligation and liabilities acquired prior to coming into force of the Act are protected under this provision. Section 310 of the Act reads: 310. Section 310 of the Act reads: 310. (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, shall stand repealed (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act): Provided that the repeal shall not effect.— (a) the previous operation of the repealed act, or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed act; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in lespect of any offnce committed against the repealed Act; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and any such investigation, legal proceeding or, remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act has not been enforced : Provided further that subject to the preceding proviso anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, or delegation made, notification, notice, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, regulation, bye laws, from, or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted, registration affected, tax imposed or fee or rate levied), under the repealed Act shall in so far as it is enforced immediately before the coming into force of this Act and is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of this Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. (2) The existing municipalities shall contnue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved under the provisions of this Act or by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly. (3) The arrangement existing for the municipalities under the repealed Act shall continue, until the corresponding municipality is constituted under this Act. 3. A bare reading of clause (b) of Section 310 of the Act shows that it is the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued under the repealed Act which have been saved. It is not fathomable how this provision helps the appellant. No right or obligation or liability which migh have been acquired or accrued or incurred under the repealed Act, i.e. Municipal Act, 1968 is in question in this suit. 4. It is not fathomable how this provision helps the appellant. No right or obligation or liability which migh have been acquired or accrued or incurred under the repealed Act, i.e. Municipal Act, 1968 is in question in this suit. 4. The effect of notification of February 21, 1995 is that the Sarahan area from that date ceased to be an urban area and this area stood transferred to Gram Panchayat Sarahan from that date and became part of Gram Panchayat Sarahan. In consequence H.P. Urban Rent Control Act from that date ceased to be operative in that area. In my view, the plaintiff was right in laying the suit for eviction under the Transfer of Property Act. The argument is misplaced and has no force. 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Control Act, 1987 extends only to urban areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh. As Sarahan was not urban area when the suit was filed therefore the Rent Act was not applicable in this case. The suit was filed on 13.6.2001 on which date admittedly Sarahan was a Gram Panchayat. There is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. CM.Ps No. 564 & 565 of 2003 6. Dismissed in view of the dismissal of the main appeal. Appeal dismissed.-