Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Atma Ram under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of certiorari or mandamus against the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, and the Rent Controller, Udaipur.

2 The case of the applicant is that he took a shop on lease from Shamlal who has also been made a party to this application. Shyamlal made an application under the (former) United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance No. XXII of 1948 before the Rent Controller, Udaipur, on 9th of December, 1950. That application was decided on the 28th September, 1951, by which date the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act (No. XVII of 1950 had come into force. The applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, as provided in the (former) United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance (No. XXII) of 1948. He also took the precaution of filing an appeal before the District Magistrate under sec. 22 of Act XVII of 1950. The appeal before the Commissioner was heard by the Additional Commissioner who, however, held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and returned it for presentation to proper authority on the 10th December, 1951.. The appeal, which was pending before the District Magistrate, was not decided upto the 21st December, 1951, when the present application was made in this Court. It was decided later and the District Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The applicants contention is that the (former) United State, of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance (No. XXII) of 1948. gave him the substantive right of appeal against the order of the Rent Controller. That right could not be, and has not been, taken away by the Rajasthan Act No. XVII of 1950, and therefore his appeal should be heard by some authority, and he should not be told, both by the Commissioner who was the authority under the (former) United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance (No. XXII) of 1948, and by the District Magistrate who is now the Appellate Authority under the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act (No. XVII) of 1950, that neither of them can hear the appeal.

3. Before we decide the question as to which is the proper forum for hearing the appeal in this case, we have to decide which law7 was in force on the 9th December, 1950, when Shyamlal made his application before the Rent Controller. It is contended that the law in force was Ordinance No. XXII of 1948, and not Act XVII of 1950. The Assistant Government Aadvocate however contends that Act XVII of 1950 had come into force on the 28th of November, 1950. Sec. 2 of that Act provides that certain sections shall come into force at once, while others shall come into force with effect from such date as may, from time to time, be notified by the Government in the Rajasthan Gazette. Sec. 30 is one of the sections which is provided as coming into force at once. The other provisions of the Act, which were to come into force on Notification by the Government, were in this particular case notified on the 16th February, 1951, to apply to the town of Nathdwara from which this case comes. Section 30 of Act XVII of 1950 reads as follows:—

"The United State of Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance 1948, the Matsya Premises (Rent Control) Ordinance, 1948, the Jaipur Rent Control Order. 1947, the Marwar House Rent Control Act, 1949, the Sirohi State Rent Restric-tion Act, 1944, and other corresponding laws of the Covenanting States dealing with the control of rents and evictions shall be repealed with effect from the date on which this section comes into force;"

There is a proviso which makes the usual provision that anything done or action taken before such date under the repealed law shall, until varied or superseded under the new Act, continue and be deemed to have been done or taken in pursuance of the new Act as if it was then in force.

4. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document