JUDGMENT : SAMVATSAR, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by one Tekchand son of Meghraj Sindhi of Indore. 2. The petitioner is a tenant occupying a portion, of house No. 44 (old No. 43) in Ranipura Indore 3. During the interval the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan was promulgated and came into force with effect from 9th February 1950. Section 23 of the said Vidhan repealed the Indore-Rent Control Order and all other Rent Control laws in existence in tile various covenanting States. After remand therefore the question arose as to whether the proceeding could be continued under the old law or the new law. The Bhada Niyantran Adhikari who was appointed under Sthan Niyantran Vidhan took up the case after remand and by his order dated 9th July 1951 held that the pending cases could be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the new law. 4. On 26th July 1951, the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari finally disposed of the matter by dismissing; the application of the petitioner for determination of fair rent. 5. On 6th August 1951, the petitioner went to opponent No. 1 to file an appeal against the order of the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari but the aforesaid opponent refused to receive the appeal as he was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the repeal of the Indore Rent Control Order. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal to the District Judge Indore under S. 9 of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan, but the learned District Judge, who is described in this case as opponent No. 2, refused to entertain the appeal holding that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner sent the appeal to the Municipal Commissioner by post but that was also returned back with an endorsement "I have no jurisdiction to hear appeal, hence returned for presentation to the proper Court." 6. The petitioner thus finding that neither the Municipal Commissioner nor the District Judge-Indore was willing to entertain and hear his appeal on merits has approached this Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of Mandamus to compel either opponent No. 1 or opponent No. 2 to hear the appeal and to dispose it of according to law. 7. Mr. Rizaram for the petitioner and Messrs. 7. Mr. Rizaram for the petitioner and Messrs. Munshi and Chafebar for opponent No. 1 and 3 were heard. The learned Advocate General was also heard. 8. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has a right of appeal and that it has been very seriously affected by the refusal of the opponents to entertain his appeal. The petitioner is knocking from pillar to the post and is getting no redress. 9. The order under appeal is passed by the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari, appointed under the Sthan Niyantran Vidhan. The Bhada Niyantran Adhikari has by his order dated 9th July 1951 held that he had jurisdiction to dispose of the pending cases in accordance with the provisions of the new law. The order passed by the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari is appealable, under S. 9 of the Vidhan, to the District Judge Indore and in my opinion the District Judge was competent to entertain this appeal and had jurisdiction to do so. It is well settled in view of the dictum, of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of - 'Janardan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad', AIR 1951 SC 217 (A) that if a Court act without jurisdiction its decision can be challenged in the same way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction i.e. an appeal would lie to the Court to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction." 10. In my opinion therefore the learned District Judge was not justified in refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and returning it for presentation to the proper Court. It may be that the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari had acted, as the learned Judge thought without jurisdiction but that was no reason why he should have refused to entertain the appeal. The learned Judge could as well have quashed the order in appeal, after he came to the conclusion on hearing both the parties that the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari had acted without jurisdiction. 11. The learned District Judge Indore has by his refusal to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by the law and the order passed by him must be set aside. 12. 11. The learned District Judge Indore has by his refusal to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by the law and the order passed by him must be set aside. 12. I quash the order passed by the learned District Judge Indore holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26-7-1951 passed by the Bhada Niyantran Adhikari. I hereby direct the District Judge Indore to receive the appeal, if presented to him by the petitioner, and to dispose it of in accordance with law. 13. In view of the fact that an approach to this Court became necessary owing to change of law during the pendency of the proceedings, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. 14. NEVASKAR, J. – I agree. Petition allowed.