JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - This Rule arises out of an order passed under the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946. The material facts are as follows: The present Petitioner is the landlord; the opposite parties are his tenants. The Petitioner instituted a suit to eject the tenants in the year 1944 and that suit was decreed ex parte in the year 1945. Sometime later, the tenants made an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC and while that application was pending, the tenants applied to the Court under the provisions of Section 10AA(3)(b) of the Bengal House Rent Control Order. The Bengal House Rent Control Order ceased to have effect after September 30, 1946. On October 1, 1946, the Calcutta House Rent Ordinance came into force and by virtue of the provisions of Section 17 of that Ordinance, the proceedings pending under the Bengal House Rent Control Order were continued. Thereafter, on January 29, 1947, the learned Munsif rescinded the decree passed on June 12, 1945. The Petitioner has moved this Court in revision. 2. I am informed that he has also preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Munsif rescinding his previous decree. A preliminary objection has been taken that an appeal lies and therefore no application in revision can be entertained. 3. It was argued before me that an order rescinding a decree was not in itself a decree and was merely an order and is therefore not appealable. I am unable to accept this view. 4. It seems to me clear that when a decree is rescinded under the provisions of Section 17 of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, the matter in dispute is finally determined for the purpose of that suit. The effect of the rescinding is not to restore the suit, but to determine it. In my opinion, the order rescinding a decree is in itself a decree and appealable as such. In this view, the application for revision cannot be entertained. 4. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs; the hearing fee is assessed at one gold mohur.