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 cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document