Judgement GOSWAMI, C. J.:- The petitioner was a tenant under the landlords of Hasanpur Estate of Dewan Abdul Haque Choudhury of Village Hasanpur. Pargana Chapghat, District Cachar. The said estate was a permanently settled estate within the meaning of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951, hereinafter called the Act. The estate was acquired by the State of Assam under the provisions of the Act on 3-3-1966 and under Section 4 of the Act the estate got vested in the State of Assam, which provides for consequences of such notification. The Deputy Commissioner demanded enhanced rent from the petitioner as also from a large number of Respondents who are impleaded in this case and who appeared through Counsel to support the case of the petitioner. 2. It is admitted that the petitioner was paying rent to the erst-while landlord at the rate of 11/- annas per Kedar. It is further admitted that the Deputy Commissioner by notification has increased this rent per Kedar to Rs.2.50 land revenue and .25 P. local rate. The petitioners short submission is that the Deputy Commissioner is not competent under sub-section (6) of S.4 of the Act, as amended by the Assam Act VI of 1954, to enhance the rent, as has been done in this case. The petitioners short submission is that the Deputy Commissioner is not competent under sub-section (6) of S.4 of the Act, as amended by the Assam Act VI of 1954, to enhance the rent, as has been done in this case. Our attention is drawn to that sub-section which may be quoted:- "(6) Until further legislation by the State Legislature in this behalf, every raiyat or non-agricultural tenant holding land in any estate or tenure, which has vested in the State, shall hold the same directly under tine State on the same terms and conditions as immediately before the date of vesting and all rents, cesses, royalties and other dues accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State Government and all such dues shall be recoverable - arrears of land revenue: Provided that the State Government shall be entitled to apply the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 (Regulation 1 of 1886) in any area if the tenants residing in it apply in writing to exchange their rights under the Goalpara Tenancy Act, 1929 (Assam Act 1 of 1929), or the Sylhet Tenancy Act, 1936 (Assam Act XI of 1836), for corresponding rights under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886: Provided further that any such person who was holding any land rent free or at a specially low rent, shall be bound to pay such rent, not exceeding the prevailing rate of rent for similar land in the neighbourhood, as may be fixed". 3. We are not concerned with the first proviso of sub-section (6) in this case. The learned Advocate General, Assam, submits that it is true that the second proviso stops short with the word "fixed and it is not mentioned in that proviso as to who is the authority who has to fix the rent, for which a ceiling has been fixed under the proviso. He however, submits that this omission to mention any particular authority to fix the rent, is inconsequential in view of Section 8. According to the learned Advocate General, since the Deputy Commissioner takes over charge of the estate or tenure vested in the State, he is competent to do all things that are provided in the section including one for fixing the rent under the earlier Section 4(6). We are, however, unable to accept this submission. According to the learned Advocate General, since the Deputy Commissioner takes over charge of the estate or tenure vested in the State, he is competent to do all things that are provided in the section including one for fixing the rent under the earlier Section 4(6). We are, however, unable to accept this submission. This is evidently a fiscal matter and for a long time the tenants have been in enjoyment of the land by paying certain rents to the landlords. In such a case, when such rent has got to be enhanced it is necessary to make provision by law fixing the authority which would be entitled to enhance the rent. Since no authority has been prescribed under the Act, which is competent to enhance the rent, the notice by the Deputy Commissioner enhancing the rent is without jurisdiction. We have pointed out to the learned Advocate General that the second proviso of sub-section (6) of S.4 puts a ceiling beyond which it is not permissible for any authority to enhance the rent. There is, however, no obligation to any authority when prescribed under the Act to fix a rent lower than the ceiling taking into consideration special conditions of a particular area or region. Therefore, it cannot be said that the second proviso has automatically fixed a rent and the rent that is prevalent in the neighbouring area is automatically applicable to the land of the petitioner. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order enhancing the rent in. the case of the petitioner. 4. The petitioners application is accordingly allowed and the order enhancing the rent and the notice issued thereafter in pursuance thereof are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. 5. B. S. BINDBA. J.:- I agree. Application allowed.