ORDER : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 2-2-1971 by the District Judge, Gwalior, whereby the learned District Judge upheld the order of the Rent Controlling Authority and thereby the standard rent at Rs. 76.50 p.m. by increasing the agreed rent from Rs. 45 p.m. by 70 per cent under section 7(2) (i) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (No. 41 of 1961). The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 7(2) (i) (b) has no application to the present case. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri J.P. Sharma on behalf of the non-petitioner that the revision is not maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order can be challenged by a second appeal under section 32 of the Act. Mr. M.A. Shah conceded to this preliminary objection and submitted an application (today (registered as I.A. No. 3439/1976) and has prayed that since there is no impediment in treating this revision as a second appeal, it may be ordered to be converted into a second appeal and be heard as such. 3. It may be observed that the court-fee as well as the limitation for second appeal are the same as those for a revision and, therefore, I do not see any objection and, in fact, there is none to convert this revision into a second appeal. I have, therefore, heard this matter as a second appeal. The Office is directed to register this ease as a second appeal and strike it off from the register of revisions. 4. Admittedly, the rent agreed between the parties on 1-6-1947 was Rs. 45 p.m. but it is also the admitted case of the parties that the rent of the accommodation in question is not shown in the Municipal Assessment Register. The question then arises whether section 7 (2) (i) will apply. 5. Section 7 (2) (i) reads as under:- “STANDARD RENT - ‘Standard Rent’ in relation to any accommodation means - (2) (i) Where the accommodation was let out on or before the 1st day of January 1948, and the reasonable annual rent or fair rent has not been so fixed, the rent of that accommodation as shown in the Municipal Assessment Register or as was realised on the 1st day of January 1948, whichever is less.” 6. Apart from other things mentioned in the section in order to apply the aforesaid provision to a particular case, it is necessary that rent of the accommodation must have been shown in the Municipal Assessment Register. The learned counsel for the petitioner’s contention is that though all other conditions are satisfied, one condition, namely - that the rent of the accommodation must have been shown in the Municipal Assessment Register is not satisfied in this ease and consequently in absence of the same, no standard rent can be fixed under this provision. No doubt, rent for the accommodation in question was realised at Rs. 45 p.m. on the first day of January 1948, but it is only one criterion for applying the provision. There must be another criterion also, namely that the rent of the accommodation must be shown in the Municipal Assessment Register. It is only then that the lesser rent of the two will be treated as basis for fixation of the standard rent. But in absence of the other criterion, the clause ‘whichever is less’ cannot be pressed into service. It is important that all the essential conditions laid down in the section for fixing standard rent must be satisfied for enforcing a law of this nature which has been introduced as an ameliorative measure. I am, therefore, of the opinion that section 7 (2) (i) has no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the standard rent cannot be determined under the said provision, I am fortified in this view by the decision in Laxman Das vs. Barfi Bai, 1972 JLJ 32 . 7. The question then arises which is the correct provision to be applied to such a case. The answer is furnished in the case I have referred to above, namely Laxman Das vs. Barfi Bai (supra). It has been held therein that in such a case the only course open to the Rent Controlling Authority would be to determine the standard rent under sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Act. I shall, therefore, not labour on this proposition, particularly when this position is not contested by the learned counsel for the opposite side and, in my opinion, rightly. 8. I shall, therefore, not labour on this proposition, particularly when this position is not contested by the learned counsel for the opposite side and, in my opinion, rightly. 8. As a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is partly allowed, the order of the learned District Judge, Gwalior dated 2-2-1971 as well as that of the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior dated 13-8-1970 are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior for determining the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Act. Parties are left to bear their own costs.