H.R. Krishnan, J.

This is an application in revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, filed by the tenant from the appellate order of the District Court, itself setting aside the order of the Rent Controller fixing as fair rent under section 9 of the Accommodation Control Act, a sum less than the rent which the petitioner had contracted to pay the landlord. The questions for decision here are, first, whether the application in revision lies at all, in other words, whether the "Court of the District Judge" mentioned in section 12 of the Accommodation Control Act, is the same as the District Court mentioned in the Civil Procedure Code, this being only an additional power given to it under the new statute, or if it is a separate Court or authority outside the Civil Procedure Code, and as such not directly subordinate to the High Court; secondly, whether the appellate Court had jurisdiction to refuse to consider the prayer itself for fair rent on the ground that in the rent agreement, the tenant had written that he himself considered the rate to be proper and legal: thirdly, whether the appellate Court's consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties is self-contained and complete or if it is only half hearted and coloured by its decision that the suit should be dismissed because of the tenant's own agreement.

The facts of the case are simple. The petitioner is the tenant in a house owned by the opposite party and had actually contracted to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 24-10-0. There was the usual kirayanama or a rent paper in which he states-

I enquired and found that the rent of Rs. 24-10-0 is lawful and proper in accordance with the law of Samvat year 2006. Accordingly, I agree to pay this rent and I would not question it any more......

All the same, he went to the Rent Controller with a suit under section 9 of the Accommodation Control Act for the fixation of fair rent which, he now suggested, should be Rs. 8-8-0 because the rent on 1-1-1911 was Rs. 5 per month. After due enquiry, the Rent Controller disposed of the suit with a decision that the fair rent should be Rs. 10-4-0. From that the landlord-opposite party went up in appeal questioning the competency of the suit, in face of the petitioner's own admission in the Kirayanama, and further suggesting on the merits also, that the notional rent on 1-1-1951 was Rs. 15 which with 70 per cent, increase would come up something more than Rs. 24-10-0. The learned appellate Court, who was no other than the Court of the District Judge, held that the admission, already quoted, disentitled the tenant from questioning the rent. It also considered certain parts of the evidence in a manner which will be described presently. It held that the order of the Rent Controller was not correct, and dismissed the tenant's suit.

From this the tenant has come up in revision on the assumption that the Court of the District Judge hearing appeals under section 12 of the Accommodation Control Act, is no other than the Court of the District Judge mentioned in Civil Procedure Code; secondly, he urges that the admission in kirayanama is no bar to his questioning the fairness of the agreed rent, the purpose of the Act being to protect the tenant from entering into such contracts in their pressing need for accommodation. Thirdly, he urges that the appellate Court's consideration of the evidence is offhand and incomplete as he has not even referred to the plaintiff's (petitioner's) evidence: this is also coloured by the findings he has already reached in regard to the effect of the admission. This Court being incompetent to consider the facts in course of a revision application, the prayer is that the case might be remanded with a direction that the appellate Court should examine the merits free from any prepossessions regarding the effect of the admissions in the Kirayanama.

The landlord-opposite party, has for his part, urged firstly that the Court of the District Judge hearing appeals under sectio