Judgement G. K. MISRA, C. J.:-The petitioner is admittedly the tenant under opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. On 29th of June, 1966 an application was filed by the landlords under Section 5 (1) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (Orissa Act XXXI of 1958) for fixation of fair rent. The existing rent was Rs. 225/- per month. The petitioner filed a written statement asserting that the existing rent was fair. The application was dismissed for default on 23-12-1966. On 12th of January, 1967, an application for restoration was filed by the landlords. The application was restored without notice to the petitioner. After the restoration, the petitioner did not appear in the case as he had no notice of the restoration. On 11th of April, 1967, the House Rent Controller made a local inspection. He passed final order on 29th of April, 1967 fixing the fair rent of the house at Rs. 500/- per month. On 4th of July, 1967, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate (executive), Balasore. The appeal was dismissed on 20th of September, 1968, by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). The present writ application has been filed asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the appellate order. 2. The learned A. D. M. (Judicial) held that though the order of restoration was made without notice to the petitioner, a registered notice had been served on the petitioner subsequent to the restoration and as no objection was taken to the illegality in the matter of restoration, the restoration was valid. He further held that though Orissa Act 4 of 1968 was assented to by the President on 17th of February, 1968, when it came into force, it had retrospective operation with effect from 4-5-1967 by virtue of Section 1 (3) of that Act and as such the appeal should have been filed before the A. D. M. (Judicial) and the filing of the appeal before the A. D. M. (Executive) was incompetent. On merits, he dismissed the appeal after having made a personal inspection himself that the rent was fair. 3. Mr. Patnaik does not challenge the order of restoration as he is to succeed on merit in this case. The order of restoration without notice to the petitioner was bad. On merits, he dismissed the appeal after having made a personal inspection himself that the rent was fair. 3. Mr. Patnaik does not challenge the order of restoration as he is to succeed on merit in this case. The order of restoration without notice to the petitioner was bad. There is no material to establish that subsequent to the restoration the petitioner was served with notice and he did not take objection to the restoration after service of notice. This point need not however be further pursued as Mr. Patnaik does not challenge the order of restoration. 4. The view of the learned A. D. M. (Judicial) that the appeal should have been filed before the A. D. M. (Judicial) cannot also be supported. The A. D. M. (Judicial) was created an appellate authority by Orissa Act 4 of 1968 which came into force on 17-2-1968. No appeal therefore could be filed before the A. D. M. (Judicial) prior to 17-2-1968. Doubtless the Act itself had retrospective operation with effect from 4-5-1967 by virtue of Section 1 (3); but this retrospective operation cannot be given effect to in relation to the power of the A. D. M. (Judicial) to entertain appeals. That would lead to absurd results as the A. D. M. (Judicial) was created as a functionary under the Act with effect from 17-2-1968 and had no existence earlier. The appeal having been filed before the A. D. M. (Executive) was competent and was rightly transferred from the file of the A. D. M. (Executive) to the file of the A. D. M. (Judicial). Section 22 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (Act 4 of 1968) makes the position clear. It says that notwithstanding the expiration of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 31 of 1958, all such proceedings pending before the Controller appointed under the said Act and all appeals pending thereunder shall respectively stand transferred to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). On the aforesaid analysis, we are clearly of opinion that the learned A. D. M. (Judicial) acted contrary to law in holding that the appeal before the A. D. M. (Executive) was not maintainable. The error of law committed by him is apparent on the face of the record. 5. The last question for consideration is whether the fair rent fixed at Rs. The error of law committed by him is apparent on the face of the record. 5. The last question for consideration is whether the fair rent fixed at Rs. 500/- per month can be sustained in the absence of any opportunity having been given to the petitioner to establish his case that the existing rent was fair. The enquiry was made under Orissa Act 31 of 1958. Section 11 thereof prescribes for enquiries. It runs thus: "For the purposes of an enquiry under this Act the Controller may - (a) require the landlord to produce any book of account, document or other information relating to the house; (b) enter and inspect the house; and (c) authorise any officer subordinate to him to enter and inspect the house. It will be apparent from the aforesaid provision that the Act nowhere prescribes as to whether evidence will be taken in an enquiry and, if so, in what manner. In Rule 8 of the Orissa House Rent Control Rules, 1959 the procedure for enquiry is prescribed thus : "In any enquiry before the Controller the evidence of each witness shall be recorded in full as the examination of the witness proceeds. No enquiry shall be adjourned except for reasons to be recorded in writing." From the rule it is clear that in an enquiry the Controller will give opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence, and if evidence is adduced, the same shall be recorded in full. Even if the procedure in R. 8 had not been prescribed, by applying principles of natural justice parties must be allowed to give evidence in respect of an enquiry whereby rights are determined. The procedure may not be elaborate but it cannot be curtailed altogether. A reasonable inference could be drawn in support of the aforesaid conclusion from the definition of "fair rent" given in Section 2 (2). "Fair rent" means rent reasonable having regard to the situation, locality, condition of the premises, amenities provided therein and the rental value fixed by the local authority, if any. Thus various elements enter into the concept of fair rent in Section 2 (2). Those elements are to be proved objectively and necessarily evidence is required to be given in the case. The evidence must be given by the parties themselves. Thus various elements enter into the concept of fair rent in Section 2 (2). Those elements are to be proved objectively and necessarily evidence is required to be given in the case. The evidence must be given by the parties themselves. Both Parties must therefore be given opportunities to adduce evidence as to the situation, the locality, the condition of the premises, amenities provided therein and the rental value fixed by the local authority. 6. Admittedly, in this case no enquiry was at all held. Both the House Rent Controller and the appellate authority relied upon their own local inspection and determined the fair rent. Section 11 does not permit it. The fact that the Controller or the appellate authority can themselves inspect the house does not substitute evidence to be given by the parties in support of their case. An enquiry in such a matter is mandatory and as per rules the evidence must be taken in full. As there has been no enquiry the ultimate finding reached in fixing the fair rent cannot be supported. We accordingly remand the case to the Controller to give full opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence. The local inspection already made by the Controller and the A. D. M. (Judicial) in the absence of the petitioner would be ignored. It is open to the Controller and the appellate authority to make local inspection, if they so choose, after giving notice to the parties. 7. In the result, the writ application succeeds. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the A. D. M. (Judicial) and the Controller. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. 8. B. K. PATRA, J. :- I agree.