JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions preferred by the respective petitioners are directed against orders dated 24.7.07 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Dungargarh in Civil Suit Nos.12/04, 13/04, 9/04 and 10/04, whereby an application preferred by the respective plaintiff- respondent no.2 herein in each petition, under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for deletion of the certain issues, has been allowed. 2. Since, similar questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. For the convenient disposal of the petitions, the facts of S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 36/08 arising out of order dated 24.7.07 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.12/04 are taken into consideration. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent no.2 preferred a suit against the defendant-petitioner for eviction and recovery of mesne profit for use and occupation of the premises in question. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues. Issue no. 2 and 11 framed by the learned trial Court to which the present controversy relates read as under:- " 2- vk;k oknh dks fookfnr nqdku dh lnHkkfod vko';drk gS\ oknh 11- vk;k Jh Mwaxjax<+ esa jkt0 fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/k0 1950 gh ykxw gksxk o lEifr vUrj vf/k0 ds vUrxZr nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA izfroknh " 4. The plaintiff-respondent no.2 preferred an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC praying for deletion of the issues reproduced hereinabove on the ground that the suit for eviction against the defendant has been preferred by the plaintiff under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act,1882( in short "the Act of 1882" hereinafter) and therefore, the plaintiff is not required to establish her reasonable bona fide necessity and that comparatively she will suffer greater hardship if the decree of eviction is not passed. It was urged on behalf of plaintiff respondent no.2 that it is necessary to delete the said issues so that the parties may not lead unnecessary evidence and the decision of the suit may not be delayed. 5. The defendant-petitioner contested the application by filing a reply thereto. It was urged on behalf of plaintiff respondent no.2 that it is necessary to delete the said issues so that the parties may not lead unnecessary evidence and the decision of the suit may not be delayed. 5. The defendant-petitioner contested the application by filing a reply thereto. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court that the plaintiff in her plaint has taken the specific stand that she has reasonable bona fide necessity of the disputed shop and the defendant has categorically denied the same. It was contended that the defendant has raised an objection that the suit for eviction from the premises in question shall be governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction), Act, 1950 ( in short "the Act of 1950" hereinafter) and not by the provisions of the Act of 1882, therefore, the issues no.2 and 11 arising in the matter have rightly been framed by the learned trial Court. 6. After due consideration , the learned trial Court observed that in the year 2004, when the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff, the Act of 1950 was not in force and the New Act( i.e. Rent Control Act, 2001) has not been made applicable to town Dungargarh , therefore, the suit for eviction can only be filed u/s 105 of the Act of 1882. Accordingly, the application preferred by the plaintiff respondent no. 2 has been allowed and Issue no. 2 and 11 have been ordered to be deleted. Hence, these petitions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the basic principle which governs the framing of the issues is adjudication of rival contentions between the parties and not the enactment under which the proceedings are alleged to be proceeded. That apart, the learned counsel urged that it is the specific stand taken by the defendant petitioner in his written statement that the provisions of the Act of 1882 are not applicable and the suit for eviction shall be governed by the provisions of the Act of 1950 alone and accordingly, in this regard, issue no. 10 has been framed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the deletion of the issues regarding bona fide necessity and comparative hardship framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties is absolutely unjustified. 8. 10 has been framed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the deletion of the issues regarding bona fide necessity and comparative hardship framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties is absolutely unjustified. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the defendant respondent no.2 has preferred the suit under the provisions of Act of 1882 and for this reason before instituting the suit, the tenancy was terminated by service of the notice to the defendant u/s 106 of the Act of 1882. The learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001, the Act of 1950 stands repealed , therefore, question of the plaintiff filing the suit under the provisions of the Act of 1950 does not arise. The learned counsel submitted that the Act of 1950 has not been made applicable to the municipal area of town Dungargarh, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent no.2 against the defendant petitioner for eviction from the premises in question is in accordance with law. The learned counsel submitted that even if the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that she has bona fide necessity of the premises in question yet, the decision of the suit in no manner depends on the determination of the issue as to whether the plaintiff has reasonable bona fide necessity of the premises in the question or not. The learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court is required to frame the issues only on material proposition of law and fact which plaintiff must allege in order to show a right and the defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties , considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. Admittedly, the Act of 1950 providing for the control of eviction from, letting of and rent for certain premises in the State of Rajasthan and other ancillary matters stands repealed by virtue of the provisions of sub-section(1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001. 10. Admittedly, the Act of 1950 providing for the control of eviction from, letting of and rent for certain premises in the State of Rajasthan and other ancillary matters stands repealed by virtue of the provisions of sub-section(1) of Section 32 of the Act of 2001. As per the provisions of sub-section (3) of the Section 32 of the Act of 2001 only those applications, suits or other proceedings under the Act of 1950 shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act which were pending on the date of the commencement of the Act of 2001 as if, the Act of 1950 had continued in force and the Act of 2001 had not been enacted. No fresh proceedings for eviction or any other ancillary matter can be lodged under the provisions of the Act of 1950 after its repeal as aforesaid and substitution by the Act of 2001. As per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001 as it was originally framed , the applicability of the Act of 2001 was extended to such of the municipal area which are comprising the district headquarters in the State and later on, to such of the other municipal area having population exceeding 50000 as per 1991 census as the State Government may by notification in the official gazette specify from time to time. It is common ground between the parties that the municipal area of town Dungargarh is not covered by the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2001,therefore, the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1950 or the Act of 2001 to the suit for eviction from the rented premises within the municipal area of Dungargarh does not arise. That apart, from the perusal of the plaint, it is manifestly clear that the suit for eviction from the rented premised has been preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1882 and not under the provisions of the Act of 1950 or the Act of 2001. That apart, from the perusal of the plaint, it is manifestly clear that the suit for eviction from the rented premised has been preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1882 and not under the provisions of the Act of 1950 or the Act of 2001. While seeking decree of eviction and possession under the Act of 1882, after termination of tenancy in terms of Section 106 of the Act of 1882, the plaintiff is not required to prove his reasonable bona fide necessity for the premises in question which is a ground available to the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the rented premises under the provisions of Section 13(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 or Section 9(1)(i) of the Act of 2001. Thus, for adjudication of the lis between the parties in the suits pending before the learned trial Court, the determination of the issues with regard to reasonable bona fide necessity of the landlord and comparative hardship is absolutely irrelevant. 11. It is to be noticed that as per the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC, the question of framing issues arise only when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. The facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint which are not relevant to the controversy involved in the suit cannot be said to be material facts requiring framing of the issue on the same being denied by the defendant. The civil Court is not under an obligation to frame the issue mechanically on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on the same being raised, without its satisfaction about its necessity for adjudication of the actual lis between the parties. The courts are not supposed to pronounce on each and every question just because the same has been raised by a parties to the proceedings, even after having arrived at a categorical conclusion that the question sought to be raised is not germane to the real lis between the parties and no corresponding relief has been sought by the plaintiff. The courts time cannot be permitted to be wasted for determination of the issues which are not required to be adjudicated upon for the determination of rights and liabilities of the parties and to do the complete justice. 12. The courts time cannot be permitted to be wasted for determination of the issues which are not required to be adjudicated upon for the determination of rights and liabilities of the parties and to do the complete justice. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am fully satisfied that for determination of the lis between the parties, the issue no. 2 and 11 with regard to reasonable bona fide necessity and comparative hardship are not required to be determined, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order deleting the said issues. 13. In the result, the writ petitions fail, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******