JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby an application for amending the issue No. 6 has been rejected by the learned Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Shri Rishipal Arora, who has since expired and is represented by the present petitioner, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner filed his written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed eight issues. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application for correction of issue No. 6 by removing the word " ugh " in the last line of the issue. The respondent filed his reply to the application. Vide order dated 13.10.2009 the learned Judge decided the issue No. 6 in favour of the respondent. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001', for short) is applicable only to those area, which have been notified, the areas, which have not been notified, continue to be governed by the old Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), 1950 ('the Act of 1950', for short). Therefore, in the issue No. 6 the word " ugh " should be deleted. In order to buttress this contention, she has relied upon Section 1 (2) of the Act of 2001. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. Section 32 of the Act of 2001 clearly states that "the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 shall stand repeated with effect from the date notified under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of this Act. It is only with regard to those cases which were pending on the date when the Act of 2001 came into force that according to Section 32(3)(a), the old Rent Control Act would be applicable. Thus, there is nothing to show in the Act that in those areas which are not covered by the Act of 2001, the old Act of 1950 would be applicable. Moreover, the reasoning given by the learned Judge is absolutely cogent. Hence, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the order dated 13.10.2009. 6. Thus, there is nothing to show in the Act that in those areas which are not covered by the Act of 2001, the old Act of 1950 would be applicable. Moreover, the reasoning given by the learned Judge is absolutely cogent. Hence, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the order dated 13.10.2009. 6. Since the petition is devoid of any merit, it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******