Abdul Hakim Khan, J. - (1.)THIS revision arises out of proceedings before the Rent Controller and it is filed under S. 115, Civil P. C. as well as under Article 227 of the Constitution. So far as the filing of this application under S. 115, Civil P. C., is concerned, I think it cannot be considered, because a Division Bench of this High Court, - - 'Shri Krishna v. Badrilal', Madh., B. LR 1953 Civ. 144 (A), has held that application of this nature under S. 115, Civil P. C. is incompetent.
(2.)IN considering the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution, I must briefly refer to the facts of the case. The opponent, on 15 -3 -1948, filed a suit for the reduction of rent in the Court of Civil Judge, Morar. The suit continued there for some time, but on the coming into force of the Sthan Niyantran Vidhan (Act No. 15 of 1950), the Court returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
Thereupon the opponent filed an application under S. 7 of the Sthan Niyantran Vidhan before the Rent Controller, Gwalior, and along with it also filed the plaint that was returned to him. The application under S. 7 of the Sthan Niyantran Vidhan was for the reduction of the rent. The applicant (Landlord) objected to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain the application. But overruling this objection the Rent Controller entertained it and fixed the rent at Rs. 483/ - per year. On appeal, the District Judge, Gwalior, confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Aggrieved by this order, the landlord has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.)THE main points urged by Mr. Ram Roop Tiwari, counsel for the applicant, are that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and that the rent fixed by him is too inadequate.
;