The Madhya Pradesh Rent Control Appeals (Validation) Act, 1951, validated both the entertaining of an appeal as well as a decision arrived at before the commencement of the Act.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the tenant challenges the order of Shri Kishorilal Lodhi, Extra-Assistant Commissioner, Jabalpur Respondent No. 2, granting permission to the landlord Respondent No. 1 under Clause 13(3)(vi)(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, to give notice to the Petitioner terminating his tenancy.

2. In support of the petition the learned Counsel had urged initially four grounds. They are as follows:

(i) Whether Shri Kishorilal Lodhi was duly empowered under Clause 21-A(1) of the House Rent Control Order to entertain the appeal in which he passed the aforesaid order;

(ii) Whether the aforesaid appeal was duly transferred to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur, under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 21-A;

(iii) Whether he was competent to take additional evidence 'suo motu', and

(iv) Whether the landlord was entitled to obtain permission to terminate the tenancy of the Petitioner because he was already occupying a house of his own in the City of Jabalpur.

3. Shri A.P. Sen, who appears for the Petitioner, gave up the first ground because Shri Kishorilal in his return has stated that he was duly invested with the powers of a Deputy Commissioner under notification No. 3894-3297/11 of 5-8-1950. He, however, contends that even so, it was necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to transfer the aforesaid appeal to the file of Shri Kishorilal and that the latter could not hear and determine the appeal in the absence of such an order.

4. From the order sheets it would appear that the appeal was preferred on 27-4-1950 in the Court of Shri Khubchand, Extra Assistant Commissioner with appellate powers. On the order sheet of the next date also the signature of Shri Khubchand appears and on the order sheet of the third date the signature of some other person which is not legible appears. On the order sheet dated 16-8-1950 and subsequent order sheets, however, the signature of Shri Kishorilal appears. From this it will be clear that the appeal came on the file of Shri Kishorilal on 16-8-1950. Shri Kishorilal has stated in his affidavit that the appeal could be entertained and disposed of by him by virtue of the aforesaid notification.

5. It would seem from the terms of Clause 21-A(2) of the House Rent Control Order that even though an officer other than the Deputy Commissioner is authorised to dispose of an appeal, he is not authorised to receive one but he can only dispose of an appeal after that appeal is transferred to him. As we have already pointed out, this appeal was not instituted before Shri Kishorilal nor before the Deputy Commissioner, but the provision of Sub-clause (2), Section 3 Madhya Pradesh Rent Control Appeals (Validation) Act, 1951, does come to the rescue of the Respondent No. 1. That provision runs thus: (2) Notwithstanding the fact that in certain appeals under the Rent Control Orders entertained before the commencement of this Act by certain officers authorised under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 21-A of the Rent Control Orders no order of transfer as required by Sub-clause (2) of the said Clause 21-A was made by the appropriate Deputy Commissioner, every such appeal entertained by any such officer shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly entertained and any decision given in any such appeal shall not be called into question in any court merely on the ground that there was failure to comply with this said provision.

This provision clearly validates entertainment of an appeal instituted before the commencement of this Act. This Act, it may be pointed out, received the assent of the President on 24-10-1951 and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary on 27-10-1951 and the appeal in question was instituted long before this. Clearly, therefore, the entertainment of the appeal by Shri Kishorilal is validated by this Act.

6. It is however said that what the aforesaid law validates is only the decision