GORDHAN LAL Vs. NATHU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 236 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner, a tenant, applied to the Rent Controller on 22nd November, 1950, for fixation of fair rent under sec. 6 of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, THE Rent Controller fixed Rs. 18/12/- as fair rent by order dated 30th June, 1951. Both the landlord , and the tenant filed appeals to the Collector of Jaipur District, who transferred the same , to the Additional Collector, who by an order dated 19th March, 1922, set aside the order of the lower court, and remanded the case for further enquiry. It is contended that under sec. 27 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which came into force on 9th December, 1950, pending cases were to be decided by the law in force on the date of enforcement of the Act, and that under the old law an appeal against an order of the Controller was provided to be disposed of by an officer appointed by the Government in that behalf. It was argued that under the old law only the Collector was authorised to dispose of the appeal, and the decision given by the Additional Collector was incompetent. It was conceded in the petition that the Additional Collector had been appointed appellate authority in respect of appeals filed under sec. 22 (3) of the Act. THE only point for decision in this case is, therefore, whether the appeal filed by the parties against the order of the Controller dated 30th June 1951, was one under the old Jaipur House Rent Control Order or under the new Rajasthan Premises (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act. THEre is no doubt that the case pending before the Controller was decided in accordance with the provisions of the said Rajasthan Act, though according to the provisions of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, for sec. 27 makes provision for pending cases to be decided in accordance with the law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act. But such a decision according to the old law is not by virtue of the continuance of the old law, but because of the provision made in the new law for the applicability of the old law to pending cases. THE decision having been given under the new Act, the rights of appeal are to be governed by the new Act. It has been held in Shivdayal vs. Naraindas (l) that where the decision by the Controller is made under the provisions of sec. 27 (2) of the Rajasthan Act, an appeal from that decision would lie under secs. 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. It was further held that although the matter was one of fixation of rent, the appeal would lie under sec. 22 (3) of the Act against the decision of the Controller, for he was not a Court, and sub-sec. (1) would not be applicable. It was argued that the Controller referred to in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 22 of the Act must be the Controller appointed under the Act, according to the definition of "controller" in sec. 3 of the Act. But sec. 30 validates previous appointments and the Controller appointed under the previous Act is to be deemed to have been appointed under the new Act. In our opinion, the right of appeal was to be governed by sec. 22 (3) of the Act,and the Additional Collector who, it is conceded, had been authorised to hear the appeals under that section was authorised to dispose of the same.