Bapna (Actg.), C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the District Judge of Jodhpur, dated 7th November, 1951.
(2.) THE petitioner Mr. Pannalal Nag submitted an application to the Rent Controller on the 3rd January, 1949, under the Marwar House Rent Control Order, 1944, for fixation of fair rent of his house. THE Control Order was superseded by the Marwar House Control Act, 1949, and the Rent Controller, by his order, dated 12th August, 1950, fixed the fair rent of the house at Rs. 30/8/- from the date of the lease of the house to the petitioner. It may be stated that the agreement between the petitioner and his landlord was for payment of rent @ Rs. 58/- per month, which was superseded by the order of the Rent Controller. An appeal against the decision of the Rent Controller was filed before the Collector, as provided by sec. 13 of the Marwar House Rent Control Act, 1949. Before the appeal could be disposed of, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII) of 1950 came into force on the 28th day of November, 1950. The Collector transferred the case to the District Judge, as the Collector thought that the appeal lay to the District Judge under sec. 22 of the Act, The District Judge modified Rs. 40/8/- as fair rent. In this revision it is argued that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal which had been filed before the Collector prior to the enforcement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. This is conceded by learned counsel for the landlord opposite party. It is clear that sub-section (2) of sec. 27 was applicable to pending proceedings, and under that provision of Act XVII of 1950, the case was to be decided by the authority before whom it was pending, on the date of the commencement of this Act, and according to law in force on that date. The appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was pending before the Collector on the date of the commencement of Act XVII of 1950, and he had therefore the jurisdiction to decide it in the manner pointed put in sub-section (2) of sec. 21. The District Judge had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by transfer and to dispose it of. The order of the District Judge, dated 7th November, 1950, is therefore set aside and the appeal is sent back to the Collector of Jodhpur for deciding it according to law. The costs of this revision will abide the result of the appeal. .;