JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner is the landlord. He filed an application for eviction of the opposite parties. The grounds for eviction were that there were arrears of rent and that the landlord required the house, in good faith, for his own occupation. The House Rent Controller and appellate authority (Additional District Magistrate, Executive) rejected the ground for eviction basely on non-payment of rent. The appellate authority, however, without recording any findings on the materials on record as to whether the landlord required the house in good faith for his own occupation, dismissed the appeal on the finding that as he also prayed for enhancement of rent, he did not require the house in good faith. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive). 2. Mr. Dasgupta contends that the relief of enhancement until eviction takes effect is not inconsistent with the other relief for eviction on the ground that the house is required by the landlord for his own use in good faith. The contention is well founded and must be accepted. In the application filed by the landlord before the House Rent Controller the following relief was sought: For determination of fair rent of the house from the date of this application till the date when the opposite party gives up possession of the house. This was referred to in paragraph 7 of the writ application and has not been challenged in the counter-affidavit. It is open to the landlord to ask for enhancement of rent under the provisions of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958, when, according to him, the rent was low. If, in fact, it is found that the rent was low it could be enhanced by fixation of a fair and equitable rent at a higher rate and the same can be decreed till the date of eviction. Simultaneously therewith, further relief can be granted for eviction if the landlord successfully brings his case within any of the grounds prescribed in Section 7 for eviction. 3. Simultaneously therewith, further relief can be granted for eviction if the landlord successfully brings his case within any of the grounds prescribed in Section 7 for eviction. 3. The learned Additional District Magistrate (Executive) therefore exercised his jurisdiction illegally in saying that the payer for eviction u/s 7(2) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958, cannot be granted merely because the landlord asked for fixation of fair and equitable rent at a higher rate. As has already been stated, the appellate authority has not recorded any finding whether the landlord has established his case within the am bit of Section 7(2) without such a finding the appeal could not have been disposed of. 4. We would accordingly allow the writ application and quash the impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive). A writ of certiorari be accordingly issued. In the,meantime, under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1968 (Orissa Act 4 of 1968) pending appeals would stand transferred to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). The case would accordingly go back to the Additional District Magistrate Judicial) Cuttack who would dispose it of in accordance with law. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. R.N. Misra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed