Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.)THIS is defendant's revision application arising out of a suit for fixation of rent instituted at Ajmer in 1951 when the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1947 was in force. It did not provide for an appeal against the decision. THIS Act was repealed in 1952 when the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 was enacted. Sec. 46 of the later Act provided for the disposal of all pending cases on the date of the coming into force of the new Act in accordance with the law as it stood before its commencement THIS Act provided for an appeal against the decision in a suit for fixation of rent. The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 was. repealed in 1957 and was replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950. THIS Act also contains a provision for an appeal against a decision in a suit for fixation of rent. THIS Act came into force in the territory of Ajmer on 27. 11. 57. The present suit for fixation of rent was decided on 18th December 1957. The question which arises for determination in the present case is as to whether an appeal lies against the decision.
(2.)THE argument on behalf of the applicant is that the Act of 1947 under which the suit was originally filed did not provide for an appeal and there was a vested right in the patties that the decision of the first court will be final and this right could not be taken away by subsequent enactments. Reliance was placed on Garikapati vs. Subbian Choudhry (1 ). THE facts of the case were that a suit had been instituted on April 22, 1949. THE valuation of the suit was over Rs. 10,000/- but under Rs. 20,000/ -. At the time of the institution of the suit a first appeal lay to the High Court and a further appeal lay to the Privy Council. By the coming into force of the Constitution the valuation of a further appeal against the decision of the High Court in such cases was raised from Rs. 10,000/-to Rs. 20,000/ -. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that an appeal lay in the case to them in spite of the fact that the valuation of the appeal was below Rs. 20,000/- because the right of appeal was a vested right which accrued to the litigant when the suit was instituted.
As was held in Debt Prasad vs. Phundanlal{2) by the majority of Judges, a distinction has to be drawn between the case where the right of appeal is taken away and the case where another right of appeal is added The interference with the rights of the parties i« clearly of a different nature in the two cases. The right of appeal is a positive-right and it accrues at the time of the filing of the suit but the absence of the right of appeal cannot be called a right at all. The prohibition of appeal by law existing at the time of the institution of the suit does not amount to a substantive or existing right accruing to the parties. This view was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Umrao Singh vs. Bhagwati Singh (3 ). The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon on behalf of the applicant it thus distinguishable.

As the law in force at the time when the present suit was decided provided for an appeal, an appeal would lie in the present case. In this connection the Division Bench decision of this Court in Gordhanlal vs. Nathulal (4) may also be referred to

I accordingly hold that the present revision application has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. .

;