JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The disputed house stands on plot No. 1132 under Khata No. 314 in Azamkhan Bazar in the city of Cuttack. The Petitioners and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are undisputedly the tenants in respect of the house. One Mohammed Rafi filed House-Rent Control Case No. 96 of 1967 on 30th of November, 1967 for eviction of the Petitioners on various grounds. On 19-1-1970 an ex parte order of eviction (Annexure-2) was passed by the House-rent Controller. An appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed by the A.D.M. (J) by his order (Annexure-1) dated 1-8-1970. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Annexures-1 and 2. Mohammed Rafi the Applicant in the application for eviction before the House. Rent Controller filed the application as the Mutawalli of Chhoti Masjid to whom the house belonged. During the pendency of the writ application Mohammed Rafi died. In his place the Managing Committee of the mosque has been substituted by an order dated 6.12.1971. The Managing Committee filed a counter-affidavit accepting the Petitioners as tenants. On 29 3-1972 the legal representatives of the deceased Mutawalli filed an application for substitution. Without allowing substitution it was ordered that the writ application would be heard in their presence. 2. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioners raised two contentions. (1) The application for eviction was filed before the House-Rent Controller, Cuttack, on 30.11.1967 who had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. (ii) Mohammed Rafi having filed the application for eviction as the Mutawalli of the mosque, on his death during the pendency of the writ application his heirs have no right to continue the proceeding for eviction as the Mohamedan law does not recognise any right of inheritance to the office of the Mutawalli unless custom is pleaded and proved. 3. The material facts in connection with the first point would appear from paragraph 6 of Baidyanath Sharma v. Sabitribala Mitra and Ors. 1969 C.L.T. 464. It would be profitable to extract the entire passage giving the history of legislation: 6. The 1958 Act was initially for a period of 5 years. 3. The material facts in connection with the first point would appear from paragraph 6 of Baidyanath Sharma v. Sabitribala Mitra and Ors. 1969 C.L.T. 464. It would be profitable to extract the entire passage giving the history of legislation: 6. The 1958 Act was initially for a period of 5 years. By Orissa Act 30 of 1963, it was amended before its expiry and the 1958 Act was to remain in force for a period of 8 years from the date of its commencement which was on 1.1.1959. In normal course the life of this Act would have expired on 1.1.1967. By Orissa Ordinance No. 5 of 1966 promulgated by the Governor on 28.12.1966 the life of the 1958 Act was further extended to II years. This ordinance was laid before the Legislative Assembly, Orissa, when the assembly first met after the Ordinance on 23.3.1967 by virtue of the provisions under Article 213 of the Constitution. The ordinance was converted into Act 7 of 1967 and it received the assent of the President on 29-4-1967. This Act was however published late in the Orissa Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 19-5 -1967. According to Section 30(ii) of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 this Act ought to have come into operation only from the date on which the President?s assent was published in the gazette, that is, 19-5-1967. But the Orissa Ordinance No. 5 of 1966 which extended the use of the 1958 Act from 8 years to 11 years ceased to operate at the expiration-of 6 weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature. In other words, the Ordinance expired on 4-5-1967. So the 1958 Act expired on that day. When the principal Act of 1958 expired on 4-5-1967, the Amending Act 7 of 1967 which was published in the Orissa Gazette on 19-5-1967 became infructuous and could not come into operation. The result was that there was no House-Rent Control Act in Orissa after 4-5-1967. To save the aforesaid situation, the-Orissa House-Rent Control Act, 1967 (Orissa Act 4 of 19(8) was passed by the State Legislature and it received the assent of the President on 17.2.1968. It was published in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) on 4-3-1968. This Act has been retrospective operation, in the area in which the 1958 Act in force, from 4-5-1967, by virtue of Section 1(3). It was published in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) on 4-3-1968. This Act has been retrospective operation, in the area in which the 1958 Act in force, from 4-5-1967, by virtue of Section 1(3). The result therefore is that the Orissa Act 4 of 1968 is in force with effect from 4-5-1967. 4. It would thus be seen that the Orissa House-Rent Control Act, 1958 (Orissa Act 31 of 1958) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1958 Act) expired on 4-5-1967. The Orissa House. Rent Control Act, 1967 (Orissa Act 4 of 1968)(hereinafter to be referred to as the 1967 Act) came into force on 4-3.1968. It was, however, given retrospective operation with effect from 4.5.1967. Factually, therefore, there was no House-Rent Control Act from 4-5-1967 to 4-3-1968. The application for eviction in this case was filed before the House-Rent Controller on 30-11-1967 when there was no House-rent Control Act. This application was obviously filed after the expiry of the 1958 Act and cannot be said to have been an application under that Act. On 30-11-1967 any application for eviction of a tenant by a landlord from a house was maintainable in Civil Court after service of fifteen days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. When the application for eviction was filed before the House-rent Controller the same should have been rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The application for eviction having been filed before a Court having no jurisdiction is liable to be dismissed. 5. The only question for consideration is whether that application is saved by Section 22 of the 1967 Act. The section runs thus: 22. Notwithstanding the expiration of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958. The application for eviction having been filed before a Court having no jurisdiction is liable to be dismissed. 5. The only question for consideration is whether that application is saved by Section 22 of the 1967 Act. The section runs thus: 22. Notwithstanding the expiration of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958. (a) anything done, any action taken, any order appointment or rules made or any notification issued in exercise of or in purported exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Act ; and (b) any proceedings instituted thereunder; shall be deemed to have been done, taken, made or issued in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act and, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been instituted under this Act as if this Act were in force on the day on which such things were done, action was taken, order, appointment or rules were made, notification was issued or proceedings were instituted; (c) all such proceeding spending before the Controller appointed under the said Act and all appeals pending there under shall respectively stand transferred to the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). All the three saving Clauses (a) to (0) relate to matters pertaining to actions done or proceedings instituted or pending under the 1958 Act. The application for eviction filed on 30-11-1967 bad not been instituted or remained pending under the 1958 Act which expired about a little more than six months before the filing of the application for eviction. Such an application is not saved by Section 22 of the 1967 Act. The application for eviction was filed before an authority having no jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. 6. In this view of the matter, the second point need not be gone into. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed. Annexures-1 and 2 be grasped by issue of a writ of certiorari. In the circumstances, parties will bear their own costs. K.B. Panda, J. 8. I, agree.