ORDER : 1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh whereby the appeal as preferred by the appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh has been affirmed and the suit filed by the respondents for eviction has been decreed. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the present second appeal involves the most crucial substantial question of law as to whether the present suit itself was maintainable in view of the fact that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1950') had been repealed and the new Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 had come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the suit was preferred on 07.10.2003 after the date the Act of 1950 having been repealed and the new Rent Control Act, 2001 having come into effect. Therefore, the present suit filed under the provisions of the Act of 1950, admittedly, could not have been entertained by the Trial Court and further could not have been affirmed by the first appellate Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya Vs. Smt. Ramkawari Devi Jhawar; reported in 2013 (3) RLW 1915 (Raj.). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the above stated position of law. He is not in a position even to controvert the position as settled by this Court in catena of judgments: 1. Vimal Chand Vs. Shri Ram Ballabh; S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.109/2009 (decided on 10.08.2011). 2. Ram Narain & Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi & Ors.; reported in 2010 (3) RLW (Raj.) 2426. 3. Nand Kishore & Anr. Vs. Vishwanath Kayal; S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.9/2012 (21.06.2012). 4. Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya (supra). 4. In view of the above submissions, Admit. No need to issue notice as the respondents are represented by their counsel. 5. 2. Ram Narain & Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi & Ors.; reported in 2010 (3) RLW (Raj.) 2426. 3. Nand Kishore & Anr. Vs. Vishwanath Kayal; S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.9/2012 (21.06.2012). 4. Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya (supra). 4. In view of the above submissions, Admit. No need to issue notice as the respondents are represented by their counsel. 5. The following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal: "Whether both the learned courts below are justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents on 07.10.2003 under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 which suit itself was not maintainable inasmuch as the Act of 1950 itself was repealed w.e.f. 01.04.2003 vide Section 32 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001?" 6. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as the position of law is settled on the issue, the appeal be decided today itself in view of the said position of law. 7. Therefore, the matter has been heard finally on the above question of law. 8. Kamal Kishore Chitlagiya (supra) was a matter wherein the objection regarding maintainability of the suit in terms of the new Act having coming into effect was not raised before both the learned Courts below and it was only for the first time before the second appellate Court that the question was raised. While dealing with the aspect whether the new Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 would apply even to the municipal areas whereby the said Act had not been made applicable on that date, the Court, while relying upon all the earlier judgments on the issue, as mentioned above opined as under: "9. Thus, Sub-sec.(1) of Section 32 of the New Act clearly provides that the Old Act shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-sec.(3) of Section 1 of the New Act. It is pertinent to note that this provision does not provide that the Old Act shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the New Act i.e. when the provisions of the New Act are extended or made applicable to different Municipal areas of the State of Rajasthan including the District Headquarters. It is pertinent to note that this provision does not provide that the Old Act shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the New Act i.e. when the provisions of the New Act are extended or made applicable to different Municipal areas of the State of Rajasthan including the District Headquarters. The legislative intention is that the Old Act shall stand repealed as soon as the New Act is enforced by the State Government by issuing the required notification in the Official Gazette. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the New Act, the State Government has issued notification on 21.3.2003 and it has been provided therein that the New Act shall come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2003. I am of the view that sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the New Act operates in two different spheres. Whereas sub-section (2) provides that the provisions of the New Act shall extend in the first instance to such of the Municipal areas which are comprising the District Headquarters in the State and lateron such of the other Municipal areas as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify from time to time, on the other hand according to sub-section (3) the provisions of the New Act shall come into force with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. Thus, the former provision provides for extension of the New Act to different areas of the State with effect from such dates as notified by the State Government whereas the later provision provides that the provisions of New Act shall come into force as soon as a date is appointed by the State Government by issuing a notification to that effect. Therefore, merely because the provisions of New Act have not been extended to other Municipal areas of the State, it cannot be said that the Old Act as a whole has not been repealed by sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the New Act and provisions of the same are still applicable to the remaining Municipal areas of the State. Therefore, merely because the provisions of New Act have not been extended to other Municipal areas of the State, it cannot be said that the Old Act as a whole has not been repealed by sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the New Act and provisions of the same are still applicable to the remaining Municipal areas of the State. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the New Act provides that all applications, suits or other proceedings under the Old Act pending on the date of commencement of the New Act before any Court shall be continued and disposed of, in accordance with the provisions of the Old Act, as if the Old Act had continued in force and the New Act had not been enacted. It is therefore, legislative intention is further clear that only pending cases filed under the provisions of the Old Act have been saved and not any other case. If the legislative intention would have been that until the provisions of the New Act are extended or made applicable by the State Government by issuing a notification to such Municipal areas which do not comprise the District Headquarters in the State, the provisions of the Old Act shall continue to apply, it would have specifically provided. In absence of such saving clause it cannot be said that despite repeal of the Old Act, provisions of the same are applicable to remaining Municipal areas of the State. 10. Apart from that, the question raised is no longer res-intigra as in many cases it has been held that the Old Act stood repealed in its entirety with effect from 1.4.2003 on coming into force of the New Act by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 32, as sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the New Act does not restrict the application of repeal only to the areas to which the provisions of the new Act have been made applicable. 11. In the case of Ram Narain & others Vs. Smt. Asha Devi & others reported in 2010 (3) RLW (Raj.) 2426, a specific question was raised as to whether the Old Act does not stand repealed in those areas where the State Government had not made the New Act applicable. The learned Single Bench after elaborate discussion and consideration of various relevant legal provisions and relying upon the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. The learned Single Bench after elaborate discussion and consideration of various relevant legal provisions and relying upon the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. Rajaram S.B.Civil Revision Petition No.445/2004 decided on 2.12.2004 came to a conclusion that “it cannot be held that the provisions of the Old Act would continue to apply in respect of other Municipal areas other than the areas comprising the District Headquarters of the State of Rajasthan as no such saving clause has been provided by Section 32 of the new Act.” 12. In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.109/2009 (Vimal Chand vs. Shri Ram Ballabh) decided on 10.8.2011 learned Single Bench after considering various decisions has held that “Thus , the plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 32 does not leave any room for doubt that the Act of 1950 stood repealed in its entirety w.e.f. 01.04.2003 on coming into force of the Act of 2001 by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 32, as sub-section (1) of Section32 of the Act of 2001 does not restrict the application of repeal only to the areas to which the Act of 2001 has been made applicable.” 13. In the case of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.9/2012 (Nand Kishore & another vs. Vishwanath Kayal) decided on 21.06.2012, a specific question was raised on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that in the case of Ram Narain & others vs. Smt. Asha Devi & others (supra), the provisions of Section 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act were not considered and that decision shall be deemed to have been decided per incurium. In the light of contention raised on behalf of the tenant the question regarding applicability of the Old Act to the remaining Municipal areas of the State of Rajasthan was considered in detail by this Court and it was held that no different view is possible to be taken from the one taken by the learned Single Bench in the case of Ram Narain & others vs. Smt. Asha Devi & others (supra) even in the light of Section 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act. It was also held that after the repeal of the Old Act and enforcement of the New Act with effect from 1.4.2003, the provisions of the Old Act are not applicable also to the areas of other Municipal Towns of the State of Rajasthan and the relationship between a landlord and tenant is to be governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. 14. So far as withdrawal of protection of Rent Control legislation is concerned, the well settled legal position is that a tenant does not have a vested right under the Rent Control legislation but it has only a protective right and such right can be withdrawn at any time and the tenant can not contend that as at one point of time, he had protection of such legislation, that can never be withdrawn or that he cannot be left without there being such protection. The tenant enjoys the statutory protection as long as the statute remain in force and is applicable to him but as soon as the statute ceases to be operative, the tenant cannot claim to have continued benefit of the old statutory protection. When the protection does not exist, the normal relations of landlord and tenant come into operation. Merely because at one point of time, the Old Act was applicable to all municipal towns of the State of Rajasthan does not mean any vested right was acquired by the tenants of those town for the continued applicability of the same for all times to come or protection of similar enactment is provided to them. Therefore, in the present case the appellant cannot claim that as the provisions of the new Act has not been made applicable to him, he is entitled to the protection of the Old Act." 9. In view of the above observations and the settled proposition of law, it is clear that the present suit filed on 07.10.2003 could not have been entertained in terms of the Act of 1950, as the Act of 1950 itself stood repealed on that date. 10. In view of the above position of law, the question of law as framed stands decided in favour of the appellants. As a consequence, the present second appeal is allowed. 10. In view of the above position of law, the question of law as framed stands decided in favour of the appellants. As a consequence, the present second appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh and judgment and decree dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh are hereby set aside. 11. The stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.