JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for brevity "the learned appellate Court") in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.9/2015 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioners/appellants/defendants (for short "the defendants") against the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.107/2002 determining the arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity "the Act of 1950"), has been dismissed being barred by limitation.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs (for short "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendants wherein, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 29.04.2015, determined arrears of rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950. The aforesaid order was assailed by the defendants by way of an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1950 which has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide order dated 27.07.2016 being time barred.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1950, would submit that for an appeal against an order passed by a Court under the Act, i.e., an intra-court appeal, the limitation is of 30 days as provided under Article 116 (b) of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (for brevity "the Act of 1963") and not 15 days as stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 22 wherein, an appeal is provided against an order passed by the Magistrate to the District Magistrate or such authority as the State Government may from time to time appoint in that behalf. He submits that since, the instant appeal was preferred within the period of 30 days, the learned appellate Court erred in dismissing the same treating it to be barred by limitation applying sub-section (3) of Section 22 . He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the order dated 27.07.2016 be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the learned appellate Court to decide the appeal on its merit.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1950 provides for an appeal against every decree or order passed by a Court under this Act to the Court to which the appeals ordinarily lie from original decrees/orders passed by such former Court. Article 116 (b) of the Act of 1963 provides for a limitation of thirty days for such intra-court appeal. Section 22 (3) provides for an appeal against an order passed by a Magistrate to the District Magistrate or such other authority as the State Government may appoint for which the limitation prescribed therein is fifteen days. Thus, there are two distinct and independent provisions of appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1950; one against an order/decree by the Court for which limitation is 30 days and another, as against an order by the Magistrate for which limitation provided is fifteen days. The limitation of fifteen days as prescribed under sub-section (3) of the Section 22 of the Act of 1950 cannot be made applicable to the appeal filed under Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1950.

7. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendants under Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1950 against the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned trial Co