Ranawat, J.—This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by one Mool Chand against an order of the Collector, Jaipur District, dated the 3rd of July, 1951, acting as an appellate authority under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (No. XVII of 1950). The Collector by his order confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated the 30th December, 1950, directing Mool Chand to refrain from stopping the supply of water to the premises occupied by Narain Das, and also to pay Rs. 25/- to Narain Das by way of damages. 2. The facts of the case are very simple. Narain Das, who alleged himself to be a tenant of Chhotey Lal as regards a residential house in the City of Jaipur, applied on the 1st of November, 1950, to the Court of the Rent Controller under sec. 7A of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, for restoration of a pipe connection which, it was stated, had been stopped by Mool Chand, a brother of Chhhtey Lal. Both Chhotey Lal and Mool Chand were impleaded as parties to the proceedings, and Chhotey Lal supported the case of the petitioner. Mool Chand contested the case by alleging that he was not the landlord, and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction under the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, to pass any orders against him on an application of Narain Das. The Rent Controller, after holding an inquiry, came to the conclusion that Narain Das was using a bath-room which was let to him by Chhotey Lal, and he was also receiving supply of water in the bath-room for which he paid Rs. 2/- per month to Mool Chand. On appeal the Collector confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, but by that time the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Evicrion) Act, 1951, had come into force, and the Collector made his order under the new Act. 3. In this application it is urged that the Rent Controller, both under the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, and the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950, had no jurisdiction to make any order in a case where the parties had no relationship of landlord and tenant. 3. In this application it is urged that the Rent Controller, both under the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, and the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950, had no jurisdiction to make any order in a case where the parties had no relationship of landlord and tenant. Sec. 7A of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, is as follows— "(1) No landlord shall, without the previous permission of the Controller, in any way disturb his tenant in the peaceful enjoyment of the benefits arising from electric and water connections and other amenities attached to the premises let to him provided the charges in respect thereof, whether or not separately determined under sub-clause (4) of clause 6, are duly paid by the tenant, unless such charges are included in the amount of the standard rent determined by the Controller under clause 6. (2) Where on an application from a tenant it appears to the Controller that the landlord has without sufficient cause, contravened the provisions of sub-clause (1), the Controller shall on such conditions as he may think fit to impose on either party, order the landlord to restore the amenities so disturbed." A similar provision appears in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, in sec. 12. 4. From the language of sec. 7 A of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, and sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, it appears that the Rent Controller can make an order on an application from a tenant against a landlord for restoration of amenities appertaining to his premises. But where the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to act. In such cases the parties may go to a civil court to get that relief. In the present case, the Rent Controller or the Collector did not give any finding" as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established between Mool Chand and Narain Das, though this point had been pressed by the petitioner in both the courts. The Rent Controller simply said that Chhotey Lal and Mool Chand were both brothers and a dispute had arisen between them regarding their houses and as Narain Das had been accustomed to receive water in the bath-room, an order for restoration of the supply of water was called for. The Rent Controller simply said that Chhotey Lal and Mool Chand were both brothers and a dispute had arisen between them regarding their houses and as Narain Das had been accustomed to receive water in the bath-room, an order for restoration of the supply of water was called for. It may be pointed out that unless the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established between Narain Das and Mool Chand, no order could have been made under sec. 7A or sec. 12 of the aforesid Order and Act against Mool Chand enjoining him to supply water to Narain Das. Obviously Narain Das came in the Court of the Rent Controller with the allegation that he was a tenant of Chhotey Lal only. According to him, he was not a tenant of Mool Chand. Mool Chand also pleaded that Narain Das was not his tenant. It was not the case of any one of the parties that Narain Das was a tenant of Mool Chand. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established so as to give jurisdiction to the Rent Controller to make an order under sec. 7A of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, or sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The action of the Rent Controller in this case appears to be without jurisdiction. The opposite party Narain Das has not cared to appear before this Court, and no objection has been filed by the Collector, Jaipur District, even though the opposite parties have been duly served. This order is therefore, being made ex parte. In view of the fact that the Collector or the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to make any order under sec. 7A or sec. 12 of the aforesaid Order and Act, as the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established between Narain Das and Mool Chand, the orders of the Rent Controller and Collector are set aside, so far as Mool Chand is concerned. It is open to the parties to go to a civil court in case there is any dispute about their rights regarding use of water. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs of this application from Narain Das including counsels fee of Rs. 40/-.