The Government's revisional jurisdiction under Section 22(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, does not extend to decisions of the appellate authority made under the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, as such decisions are governed by Section 27(2) of the Act and are deemed to be made under the old law.

RANAWAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for a writ of certiorari or mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) MADANLAL applied to the Rent Controller, Jaipur for grant of a certificate for ejectment in respect of a house against Sewaram who was his tenant, and was in occupation of the premises. The Rent Controller granted a certificate but on appeal the Collector, on the 19th of March, 1951, cancelled the certificate. A revision application was filed by Madanlal in accordance with the provisions of section 22 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and the Government set aside the order of the Collector and restored the order of the Rent Controller on the 22nd of August, 1951, and further directed that the landlord be put into possession of the premises which were in the occupation of the tenant. Subsequently the Government amended its order and deleted that portion of it which related to the placing of the landlord into possession of the premises. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Government had no jurisdiction to hear a revision application against an order of the appellate authority deciding an appeal in a case filed under the provisions of the Jaipur Rent control Order, 1947. It is further contended that Mr. Bhajan Lal Chaturvedi, home Secretary to the Government, who heard and decided the revision application of Madanlal was not authorised by the Government to hear such revision applications under the rules made under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act of 1950.

( 3 ) IN reply it was stated on behalf of Madanlal that the Government of rajasthan acted within the scope of its jurisdiction in deciding the revision application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act of 1950. The Government Advocate stated at the time of the hearing of the case that Mr. Bhajanlal Chaturvedi, Home Secretary was duly appointed by the Government under the provisions of the rules made under the rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act of 1950 to hear revision applications which were presented to the Government under Section 22 (4) of the said Act.

( 4 ) ON the above statement of the Government Advocate, the learned counsel of the petitioner did not press the second point raised by him regarding want of jurisdiction relating to the hearing of the revision petition by the Home secretary. This point therefore need not be decided now. The only point which remains for determination in this case is whether the Government was competent to hear a revision application under Section 22 (4) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act of 1950 against an order of the appellate authority made under the Jaipur Rent Control Order.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel of the petitioner has cited the judgment of the case in P. C. GUHA v. E. A. BASIL, 55 Cal W N 611, in support of his contention that in a case decided under the provisions of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, no revision application lay to the Government under Section 22 (4) of the new Act after the old Act had been repealed.

( 6 ) THE facts of p. C. GUHA v. B. A. BASIL, 55 Cal W N 611, were as follows: B. A. Basil, the landlord filed an application for fixation of standard rent under the rent Control Act of 1948 in respect of premises occupied by P. C. Guha and others. The Rent Controller fixed standard rent of the premises and against his decision the tenants preferred appeals to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small causes, Calcutta who transferred the cases to the file of the Small Cause Court judge. The Small Cause Court Judge, to whom the appeals were transferred, substantially upheld the order of the Rent Controller but before the appeals were decided the Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 came into force and section 17 (3) of the Rent Act of 1950 provided:

"if at the date when this Act comes into force proceeding for fixing sta