JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Opposite party No. 1 instituted a rent suit being Rent Suit No. 742 of 1961-1962 against the Petitioners in the Court of the Rent Suit Officer, Balasore claiming recovery of Rs. 20/- said to be arrear Dhulibhag dues for the 1367 and 1368 Sals corresponding to 1960 and 1961 respectively. The suit was filed on 12-4-1961. On contest it was dismissed on 3-4-1961 by the Deputy Collector exercising the powers of a Collector and functioning as the Rent Suit Officer. He accepted the objection raised by the tenants (Petitioners) that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, and therefore no rent was payable. Opposite party No. 1 carried an appeal before the Additional District Collector of Balasore being Rent Appeal No. 60 of 1964. Additional District Collector opposite party No. 2, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit by his judgment dated 3-6-1965. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the appellate judgment dated 3-6-1965 decreeing the rent suit. 2. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, appearing for the Petitioners, mainly contends that Additional District Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and as such the appellate decision is vitiated. He bases his contention on the footing that this was a case where objection had been raised to the claim of opposite party No. 1 on the score of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. By Orissa Act, 29 of 1962 which came into force with effect from 10-11-1962, disputes regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant would be disposed of only by the Collector under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as the disposal by the first Court was subsequent to the Amending Act, the new procedure under Act 29 of 1962 was applicable and an appeal lay to the Collector, and the Additional District Collector had no jurisdiction. 3. Opposite party No. 1 challenged the contention of the Petitioners by asserting that no proceedings under the Act had been taken by him before the original authority. There is no jurisdiction conferred on the Collector under the Act to entertain a claim for arrears of rent. 3. Opposite party No. 1 challenged the contention of the Petitioners by asserting that no proceedings under the Act had been taken by him before the original authority. There is no jurisdiction conferred on the Collector under the Act to entertain a claim for arrears of rent. Opposite party No. 1 had actually filed a rent suit which continued to be governed by the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act and a claim for arrears of rent was not cognisable by the Act. The provisions of Section 11-A, of the Act and by virtue of that section a dispute regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant arising in a proceeding under some other Act was not governed by the provisions of Section 11-A, of the Act. We called for the records to satisfy ourselves as to whether opposite party No. 1 had raised a dispute u/s 9 of the Act claiming for arrears of rent or he approached the Rent Suit Officer with a claim for arrears of rent under the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act. On verification, we find that a regular Rent Suit was filed and it had been so registered. The Petitioners entered appearance in the Rent Suit and took steps also treating the dispute to be a Rent Suit. Opposite party No. 1 had carried an appeal which came to be registered as a Rent Appeal before the Additional District Collector. 4. It has, therefore, to be examined as to whether the Additional District Collector exercised a jurisdiction which was conferred on him by Statute. Once it is held that it was a rent suit involving a demand of less than Rs. 100/- and the original forum was that of a Deputy Collector exercising the powers of a Collector, the proviso to Section 204(2) of the Orissa Tenancy Act makes the appeal before the Additional District Collector maintainable. Therefore, opposite party No. 2 had fun jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and by reference to the provisions of Section 11-A, of the Act his jurisdiction is not open to question. 5. Mr. Mohapatra thereafter contended that after the Act came into force a rent suit under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act was no more maintainable. He wanted to rely upon the judgment delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice in Saunti Jena v. Sachidaranda Patnaik 30 C.L.T. 480 to support his aforesaid submission. 5. Mr. Mohapatra thereafter contended that after the Act came into force a rent suit under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act was no more maintainable. He wanted to rely upon the judgment delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice in Saunti Jena v. Sachidaranda Patnaik 30 C.L.T. 480 to support his aforesaid submission. 6. The Act did not authorize the Collector to entertain a claim for rent. Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, where reference to rent has been made, clearly goes to show that if there be failure by the tenant to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued due within two months; from the due date, a claim for eviction of the tenant would be maintainable on that score. Therefore, while the claim itself for arrears of rent is not maintainable be fore the Collector under the O.T.R. Act, different rights as a consequence based upon such failure have been made cognizable by the Collector under that Act. No provision having been made under the Act in respect of a claim for arrears of rent, the provisions under the Orissa Tenancy Act to grant relief in respect of such claims continues unaffected by the provisions of the Act. The claim in the instant case had been placed before the proper Court and the same had rightly been entertained. It was dismissed on merit and an appeal had been taken before the Additional District Collector as provided by the Statute, and the appellate authority had full jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the said appeal. 7. The reported decision referred to above was in a Second Appeal where reference was made to the Orissa Tenants Protection Act (Act 3 of 1948) which was the law in force prior to the Act. Therein also there was no provision conferring jurisdiction on the Collector to entertain a claim for rent. Section 7(1)(d) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act dealt with the liability of the tenant for eviction as a consequence of failure to pay the rent accrued due within the specified period, but did not authorize the Collector under that Act to entertain the claim for rent itself. Section 7(1)(d) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act dealt with the liability of the tenant for eviction as a consequence of failure to pay the rent accrued due within the specified period, but did not authorize the Collector under that Act to entertain the claim for rent itself. Any observation to the contrary in the said decision must be taken to have been on account of the fact that it was not brought to the notice of my Lord that no jurisdiction had been conferred on the Collector exercising functions under the Act to entertain a claim for rent. 8. Mr. Mohapatra did not challenge the decision of the Additional District Collector on merits. There is no merit in this writ application and it is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. G.K. Misra, C.J. 9. I agree. The observation in Saunti Jena v. Sachidananda Patnaik 30 C.L.T. 480 is contrary to law for reasons pointed out in paragraph 7 of this judgment and is hereby over-ruled. Final Result : Dismissed