Wanchoo, C.J. —These are three connected revisions, and we shall deal with them in one judgment as the main point raised in them is the same.

2. Civil revision No. 178 is by Shivdayal. He was tenant of a house in Jodhpur and his. landlords were Naraindas and others. The tenant Shivdayal made a complaint on 29.4.49 under sec. 3 of the Marwar House Rent Control Act (No. XXV) of 1949 to be hereinafter called the Marwar Act to the Controller that the rent of his house was excessive and fair rent should be determined. This matter was decided by the Controller on the 15th January, 1951, after the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the Rajasthan Act) had come into force. Shivdayal then filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed. The landlord Naraindas first filed an appeal before the Collector, but that was returned for presentation to the proper court, and then that appeal also was filed before the District Judge who disposed of both the appeals by one judgment. Shivdayal has come in revision to this Court, and even though he himself filed an appeal before the District Judge has now taken the curious position: that that court had no jurisdiction.

3. Civil Revision No. 31 of 1952 is by Mardan Khan. He filed a complaint on the 21st of December, 1949, before the Controller under sec. 3 of the Marwar Act for fixing fair rent. The matter was decided by the Controller on the 11th January, 1951. Thereupon, the landlord Heeralal filed an appeal before the District Judge on 10.2.51. That appeal succeeded partially, and therefore Mardan Khan has come to this Court in revision.

4. The third revision is by Shambhoo Ram and Sampatram who are landlords. Meghraj and Tarachand, who are tenants, made a complaint under sec. 3 of the Marwar Act on 17th January, 1950, for fixing fair rent. That application was decided by the Controller on the 26th of May, 1951. Thereupon, the tenants Meghraj and Tarachand went in appeal to the District Judge, which was partially allowed. Hence Shambhooram and Sampatram have come up in revision to this Court.

5. The cases came up for decision before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who, considering the importance of the point involved, has referred them to a Division Bench.

6. In all the three cases it is contended before us that, in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Act, the appeal lies not to the District Judge under sec. 22(1) of the Act, but to such authority as the Government may appoint in that behalf under sec. 22(3) of the Act. This authority, we understand, is the District Magistrate of Jodhpur under the orders of Government. The main question, therefore, that requires consideration is whether the appeal lies under sec. 22(1) of the Rajasthan Act, or under sec. 22(3). It is common ground between the parties that the cases were disposed of by the Controller under the provisions of sec, 27(2) of the Rajasthan Act, which provides that cases pending before a Controller or any other authority before the commencement of the Rajasthan Act shall be determined and disposed of by such controller or authority in accordance with such law, as was in force before the Rajasthan Act came into force. The decision therefore of the Controller in each of three cases was under sec. 27(2) of the Rajasthan Act and appeals from that decision would lie under sec. 22(1) or 22(3) as the case may be depending upon the nature of the matter decided, and the position of the authority deciding the matter. We are not taking into account the recent amendment of the Rajasthan Act by Act IX of 1952, because that amendment came into force on the 1st March, 1952, and the right of appeal in this case would be governed by the Rajasthan Act as it stood before the amendment.

7. Before we consider the terms of sec. 22(1) and 22(3) of the Rajasthan Act, we would like to make a reference to Sewaram vs. Government of Rajasthan (1) (A.I.R. 1552 Raj. 109.). That case seems to have given r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document