JUDGMENT Brij Mohan Lall, J. - This is an appeal against an appellate order of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to "proper court" by which term he meant the court of Small Causes. 2. The Appellant is a landlord. He started proceedings aganist the Respondent who is his tenant u/s 7(B) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947,). The Respondent put in appearance, made the necessary deposit and filed an objection. Thereupon the court, acting under Sub-section (7) of the aforesaid section issued notice to the Appellant informing him that he could, subject to the payment of court-fee, have his application treated as a plaint in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The Appellant availed of that opportunity, paid necessary court fee and got the application treated as a plaint in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The parties went to trial. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in Appellants favour. 3. The Respondent preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Civil Judge. One of the points pressed before him was that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to decide the claim for arrears of rent because it was a claim cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. This plea found favour with the learned Additional Civil Judge who, as stated above, directed the plaint to be returned to the Appellant for presentation to proper court. 4. The landlord has come in appeal to this Court and the contention put forward by his learned Counsel is that the view taken by the court below is incorrect. He relies on a recent decision of this Court reported in Moti Ram v. Smt. Hastna begam 1953 A.W.R. (H.C.) 155. In that case this Court held that in a suit instituted in the aforesaid circumstances the Munsif had jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit for arrears of rent. 5. In view of this authority the order directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the Small Cause Court cannot be upheld. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that if the order passed by the learned Additional Civil judge is to be set aside he should be directed to hear the appeal on merits. In view of this authority the order directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the Small Cause Court cannot be upheld. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that if the order passed by the learned Additional Civil judge is to be set aside he should be directed to hear the appeal on merits. This gives rise to another question as to whether or not the order passed by the learned Munsif was appealable. This point was left undecided in the aforesaid case. 7. In deciding this question reference must be made to Sub-section (8), which says: If the applicant pays the necessary court-fee within the time allowed, the application shall be treated as a plaint and the proceedings as a suit. 8. If the proceedings were to be treated as a suit, naturally they should terminate in a decree. It is provided by Section 96 of the CPC that: Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of such court. 9. In other words, every decree of a court exercising original jurisdiction is appealable unless the right of appeal has been taken away by the CPC on by any other law for the time being in force. There is no provision of law which takes away the right of appeal. It will, therefore, follow that the decree passed by the learned Munsif was appealable. 10. It may be pointed out in this connection that Section 6(2) of the Rent Control Act provides that no appeal shall lie in a suit instituted u/s 5(4). This implies that, but for this provision, an appeal would have lain to the court which ordinarily hears appeals against the decisions of the Munsif or the Civil Judge, In other words the legislature itself treated all decrees under the Act appealable and felt the need for making special provision declaring a certain decree non-appealable where it so intended. 11. It is, however, urged on behalf of the, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the above argument implies that the CPC applies. It is pointed out that the said Code has not been expressly made applicable to proceedings under the Act. 11. It is, however, urged on behalf of the, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the above argument implies that the CPC applies. It is pointed out that the said Code has not been expressly made applicable to proceedings under the Act. This contention is without force. The very fact that the application has been allowed to be treated as a plaint and the entire proceedings have been treated as a suit indicates that the CPC was made applicable. No other procedure has been prescribed by the Act itself. Therefore the residuary procedure prescribed in the Code ot CPC was applicable. 12. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that an appeal lay to the District Judge which could be disposed of by the learned Civil Judge. 13. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court is set aside. The learned Additional Civil Judge is directed to readmit the appeal to its original number and to dispose it of to accordance with law. 14. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this