P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

This is a revision application under section 20 of Sind Rent Restriction Act of 1952. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are as under: The applicant owns a house bearing survey No. D/44‑2490 in Hyderabad Sind. The Rent Controller (Mr. Pirzada) having been moved by the tenant, fixed Rs. 25 as fair rent of this house. This was on 21‑9‑

49. Sometime after this order, the house came to be occupied by one Sarfraz Beg who agreed to pay Rs. 30 p.m. After Sarfraz Beg left, Zainul Abedin the opponent in this case became the tenant of the house. The tenancy started on 1‑10‑51, and the opponent regularly paid rent at the above rate upto 31-3‑

52. Thereafter he failed to pay the rent. On 2‑4‑53, he made an application to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent and the Controller (Mr. Naqvi) by his order, dated 14‑9‑53, fixed fair rent of the premises at Rs. 12 p.m. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner went in appeal before the Collector of, Hyderabad, who holding that the Rent Controller was, not empowered to review, the order passed by this predecessor, set aside his order. 'The opponent filed a revision application before, the Government of the former Province of Sind, and the latter holding that such review was permissible, sent the papers back t& the Collector for decision o the matter on merits: .The D. C. dismissed the appeal of the petitioner; and upheld the, order of the Rent Controller. Against this order of the D. C. ..the petitioner filed a revision application before the Government, and now it has come before me for decision. I have heard the learned counsel , for the petitioner. The order of the D. C. cannot possibly be maintained. Section 4 of the Rent Restriction Act; 1952 empowers Rent Controller to fix fair rent. Section 5 of the Act empowers him to re‑determine fair rent when Improvements are made. He could fix the rent in certain circumstances order section 11 of the Rent Restriction Act, but, admittedly such circumstances do not exist, in this case. Order XLV.II, Rule 1 which provides for review will not apply to the facts of this case, as, there is no allegation that a new fact yr an important matter or, evidence has beets, discovered or there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Similarly Order XLV11, Rule 2 will not apply as review application has to be made to the officer who passed the order. In this case, the original order was passed by Mr. Pirzada, and it was reviewed by Mr. Naqvi. There is no other provision in the Rent A Restriction Act empowering the Rent Controller to review the order passed by his predecessor. It is therefore clear that the order passed by Mr. Naqvi reviewing the order passed by Mr. Pirzada, and fixing the rent at Rs. 12 p.m. is without jurisdiction and therefore nullity in law. I therefore allow the application and set aside the order with costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted.