Order : 1. The petitioner/defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Didwana, District Didwana-Kuchaman, in Civil Suit No.46/2022, whereby application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit against the petitioner/defendant before the learned Civil Judge, Didwana on 01.09.2019 under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act . In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner/defendant after being served with the summons filed his written statement on 06.03.2020 while denying the averments in the suit. As per the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. 3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 13.09.2024 seeking to amend the written statement filed, whereby the petitioner sought to add pleading with respect to non-maintainability of the suit in view of provisions of new Act, inasmuch as the Civil Judge left with no jurisdiction to hear and try the suits relating to dispute between the land and tenant and that on 07.085.2023, Didwana was declared as independent District and thus provisions of new Rent Control Act, 2001 were made effective. The petitioner/defendant thus prayed to add paragraphs 13 and 14 in his written statement. 4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed reply to the said application and denied the averments made therein. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter heard arguments of the parties and vide impugned order dated 12.11.2024 (Annex.6) proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner/defendant. 6. Aggrieved by order dated 12.11.2024, the petitioner/defendant has preferred the instant writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has seriously erred in passing the order impugned, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has not considered the reasons submitted in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of passing of impugned order denying petitioner to raise objection with respect to maintainability of the suit, the petitioner’s legal right has been infringed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of passing of impugned order denying petitioner to raise objection with respect to maintainability of the suit, the petitioner’s legal right has been infringed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property is situated in town Didwana and the suit seeking eviction was filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act , however, the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001 has come into effect in town Didwana from 07.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001, the suit under the Rajasthan Premises (Rajasthan Control and Eviction) Act, 1950 have been saved, however, the suit filed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act have not been saved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of coming into force of the new Rent Control Act, 2001 in town Didwana, a legal right has been created in favour of petitioner to raise objection before the civil court to not to hear the matter as the same is now having no jurisdiction to try the suit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the amendment sought in the written statement were germane to the controversy involved and, therefore, denial thereof would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that town of Didwana became a District headquarter from 07.08.2023 by Notification issued by the competent Government, of course, after filing the written statement, which was a subsequent event after commencing the trial of the suit and thus the defendant had proceeded with due diligence in filing the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC , however, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating his arguments submits that the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001 stands extended to the municipal area of Didwana district and thus the proceedings of eviction against the petitioner/tenant cannot be continued in the suit filed after termination of tenancy in terms of provisions of Section 106 of the TP Act, as the tenant would be now entitled for protection under Chapters I and III of the Act of 2001. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner/defendant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner/defendant. He submits that till date no notification has been issued by the State Government in relation to enforcement of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001 in newly created District Didwana and, therefore, the jurisdiction to hear the suit vests with the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs further submits that in the suit, evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs is complete and the matter is fixed for evidence of the defendant and by filing application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC , the defendant seeks to prolong/stall the proceedings of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal Nadani v. Sohanlal Jain : Civil Appeal No.2816 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2455 of 2022 decided on 12.04.2022 while submitting that the Notification, when issued, shall have applicability from the date when it is issued and would not have a retrospective effect. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court finds that the suit seeking eviction of the petitioner/defendant and mesne profit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act on 01.06.2019 and on the date of filing the suit, the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act , 2001 were not applicable and the jurisdiction to hear these matters was vested in the civil court. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that there is no provision under Section 18 of the Act, which inter- alia provides that the provisions of said Act, would be applicable retrospectively to the pending suits. Further, no Notification with respect to provisions of the Act of 2001 in District Didwana has been issued by the State Government. The learned Trial Court has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal Nadani (supra) and has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC . 12. The learned Trial Court has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal Nadani (supra) and has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC . 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarlal Nadani (supra) has inter-alia held as infra: “Under the Act in question, Section 18 does not talk about the validity of ny decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. After the applicability of the Act to the area in question, the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court. However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit.” 13. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has considered the order dated 26.10.2017 passed in D.B. Civil Reference No.01/2015 : K. Ramnarayan v. Shri Pukhraj , however, it has also been specifically noted in the impugned order itself, that operation of order dated 26.10.2017 has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned rejecting petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC . 15. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, there is no force in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay Petition also stands dismissed.