Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the learned Munsif, Jaipur City, East, dated 16th October, 1956.
(2.) CERTAIN issues were framed by that order in suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The defendant filed an appeal to the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, who by order dated 23. 4. 57, rejected the same. It was held that no appeal lay. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, permits an appeal, and the learned lower court was not right in throwing out the appeal on the preliminary objection that no appeal lay. Sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, runs as follows - "22 Appeal and Revisions - (1) An appeal shall lie to the Court of District Judge from every decree or order passed by a Court under this Act. (2) No second appeal shall lie from any such decree or order : Provided that nothing herein contained shall effect the rowers of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in revision. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Magistrate may, within fifteen days from the date of such order appeal therefrom to such authority as the Government may from time to time appoint in that behalf," The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that every order or decree passed under the Act is appealable by virtue of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 22. The first requisite is that the order or decree appealed from must have been passed under the Act. The suit for ejectment is not under this Act, but it is under the rights of the landlord safeguarded by the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly the right to recover rent is not granted by this Act, but by the contract between the parties. Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Permises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which is in respect of eviction of tenants places a further restriction on the right of the landlord arising under the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly the stipulation as to the amount of rent has certain restrictions attached to it by virtue of sec. 6. The right to recover rent or to claim ejectment does not rest upon the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, but on other laws, and, therefore, every decree or order passed in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment is not appealable by virtue of sec. 22 of the Act. There are other provisions in the Act which, when applied make the order or decree under that Act. An example of such decree would be the fixation of standard rent under sec. 6, or an order for increase of rent under sec. 11, or for letting the tenant again into possession after eviction in accordance with sec. 15. This revision is, therefore, not maintainable, and is accordingly dismissed. The stay application automatically fails and is dismissed. .;