Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.)THIS is a revision application by the tenants against an appellate decree of Shri G. D. Badgel dated 18. 1. 57. Shri Badgel has designated himself as Senior Sub Judge First Class Ajmer. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs landlords on 2. 11. 53 in the Court of Second Additional Sub Judge First Class Ajmer and it was decreed by him on 31. 7. 56. The suit was for arrears of rent and ejectment. The prayer for ejectment was based on two grounds namely that the plaintiffs needed it for their personal use and that there was a default on the part of the defendants in the payment of rent. The tenants however deposited the arrears of rent in court under the provisions of sec. 13 (2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 which was applicable to Ajmer. The suit was accordingly decreed for ejectment on the ground that the plaintiffs needed it for their personal use. ,
(2.)THE defendants preferred an appeal against the decree in the court of the Senior Sub Judge First Class Ajmer on 3. 10. 56 treating it as an appeal under sec. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952. Under the Ajmer Courts Regulation, 1926 there was no court of the Designation of Senior Sub Judge. When the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 came into force the court of Judge Small Causes, Ajmer was designated as the Court of the Senior Sub Judge for purposes of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 under an order of the President. Ajmer was then a Centrally administered area.
On 1. 11. 56 the State of Ajmer was merged in the State of Rajasthan. The designation of different courts functioning in Ajmer however continued unchanged till a notification dated 30. 12. 57 was issued changing their designations.

The Rajasthan Civil Courts Laws ( Extension ) Act 1956 ( Act No. 2 of 1957 ) came into force on 5. 1. 57. Under sec. 3 of this Act the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance 1950 was extended to Ajmer area with effect from 1. 12. 1956. Under sec. 4 reference to any authority competent to exercise any powers or discharge any functions in the Ajmer area was deemed to be a reference to a corresponding authority in the State of Rajasthan. In Rajasthan However there was no court corresponding to the court of Senior Sub Judge. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that Shri G. D. Badgal was no longer a Senior Sub Judge on 18. 1. 57 when he disposed of the present appeal. On behalf of the respondents my attention has been drawn to the following proviso to sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Laws (Extension) Act - "provided further that - (a) Until other provision is made, all courts constituted, appointments and orders made and jurisdiction and powers conferred under any law so repealed shall, unless repugnant to the provisions of any Rajasthan Ordinance specified in the Schedule, be deemed to have respectively been constituted, made and conferred under such relevant Rajasthan Ordinance. " It has been argued that until any other court was designated as the court of the Senior Sub Judge in Ajmer under the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance the court of Shri G. D. Badgel which continued to bear that designation was competent to discharge the functions of the Senior Sub Judge under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.

In my opinion it is not necessary in this case to decide this point as an appeal in a suit for rent and ejectment cannot be regarded as an appeal under sec. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952. It is an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection the decisions of this Court in Shambhuram vs. Gurudayal (1) and Shivkumar vs. Ballabhadass (2) may be referred to. Although these decisions were given in cases from Rajasthan where the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 was applicable the same reasoning is applicable to cases from Ajmer area. The present suit was decided by the Second Additional Sub Judge First Class. Under the Ajmer Courts Regulation an appeal lay in the case to the District Judge and not to the Senior Sub Judge. The appeal preferred by the applicants on 3. 10. 56 was presented to the wrong court. The memorandum of appeal should have been presented to the court of the District Judge. Shri G. D. Badgel was not competent to entertain the appeal. I accordingly allow the revision application and set aside the appellate decree passed by him.

As however it had been held by the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer that such appeals were appeals under sec. 34 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 such appeals were always preferred to the Court of the Senior Sub Judge. In view of this practice the delay in presenting the appeal to the proper court is condoned under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and the appeal is sent to the court of the District Judge Ajmer for decision in accordance with law. It will be open to the learned District Judge to transfer this appeal to the Civil Judge under Sec. 22-A of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance 1950 as amended by Act No. 5 of 1958.

As this case has been pending for a very long time the appeal should be disposed of expeditiously. The costs of this Court shall abide the final result of the appeal. .

;