B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) A short question which arises In this petition is whether the order of the Deputy Collector Baroda under sec. 23a of the Bombay Rent Hotel Lodging Lodging and Boarding House Rates Control Act 1947 permitting the opponent herein to have electric connection In the promises belonging to the petitioner herein is a legal order. The question arises in the following circumstances: ( 2 ) THE opponent herein filed an application before the Collector Baroda under sec. 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act for obtaining permission for having electrical installation in the premises in possession of the opponent belonging to the petitioner-landlord on 28th December 1972 The Deputy Collector Baroda issued a notice to the petitioner in the matter. The petitioner filed his reply objecting to the right of the opponent herein to have electrical connection contending inter alia that the Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to grant permission ought for. The Deputy Collector after hearing the parties rejected the contention as to his competency under sec. 23-A of the aforesaid Act and also rejected all the objections on merits and ordered that the opponent herein will be entitled to have electrical connection in the premises occupied by him at his expenses. It is this order which is the subject matter of this petition before me. ( 3 ) THE only contention which has been pressed into service by Mr. Shah the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Deputy Collector who heard and decided the matter had no right authority or jurisdiction to grant permission under sec. 23-A of the said Act inasmuch as the competent authority to grant such permission. according to the said section is the Collector who being a persona designata is alone entitled to give permission which was sought for and the authority who in this case granted permission was merely Deputy Collector therefore could not have acted for the Collector under sec. 23 of the said Act. In order to appreciate this contention of Mr. Shah it would be profitable to refer to a few relevant provisions on this point. Sec. 23-A is a new section which has been recently introduced in the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 as applicable in the State of Gujarat. 23 of the said Act. In order to appreciate this contention of Mr. Shah it would be profitable to refer to a few relevant provisions on this point. Sec. 23-A is a new section which has been recently introduced in the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 as applicable in the State of Gujarat. It provides the circumstances where the tenants are entitled to the supply of electricity at their costs. Sec. 23 reads as under:23 (1) When a tenant desires to get supply of electricity at his own cost from a licensee within the meaning of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and the owner of the premises does not give his consent therefor the tenant may apply to the Collector setting out the scheme for such supply. (2) On receipt of such application the Collector may after giving the landlord and the owner of the premises if he be not the landlord opportunity of being heard permit the tenant to get the supply an accordance with the scheme set out in the tenants application on in accordance with any modified scheme. (3) On such permission being given notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or in any other law for the time being in force the owner shall be deemed to have given the requisite consent under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 12 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and the licensee shall not be liable to the owner for trespass for steps taken for supply of electricity according to the said permission. The Bombay Rent Control Act 1947 has not defined the term Collecor and therefore the definition given by the term Collector in the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 would have a bearing on the question. According to sec. 3 (11) of the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 the term Collector is defined as to mean the Chief officer incharge of the revenue administration of a district. . Mr. Shah therefore urged before me that as the competent authority to grant permission under sec. 23a is the Collector he alone is entitled to give such permission and no other officer who is not in the charge of the revenue administration of the district can exercise his functions as a delegate of the Collector or on behalf of the Collector. ( 4 ) IN my opinion Mr. 23a is the Collector he alone is entitled to give such permission and no other officer who is not in the charge of the revenue administration of the district can exercise his functions as a delegate of the Collector or on behalf of the Collector. ( 4 ) IN my opinion Mr. Shah in making this submission has lost sight of sec. 10 Paragraph (2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is no doubt true that under sec. 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act 1947 the competent authority to grant permission in question to the tenant for purposes of obtaining electrical supply in the premises occupied by him is the Collector. It is also true that there is no definition of the term Collector in the Rent Act and therefore we have to consider how the term as defined in the Bombay General Clauses Act. According to sec. 3 (11) of the Bombay General Clauses Act the Chief Officer in charge of the revenue administration of the district is a Collector. It is also true that the Deputy Collector or the Assistant Collector for that matter is not in the charge of the revenue administration of the entire district. However sec. 10 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code enumerates powers and duties of the Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors. Sec. 10 so far as relevant for our purposes provides as under :10 Subject to the general orders of (the State Government) a Collector may place any of his assistants or deputies in charge of the revenue administration of one or more of the talukas in his district or may himself retain charge thereof. Any Assistant or Deputy Collector thus placed in charge shall subject to the provisions of Chapter XIII. . . . . . . . . . perform all the duties and exercise all the powers conferred upon a Collector. . . . . . . . . . by this Act or any other law at the time being in force so far as regards the taluka or talukas in his charge. . . . . . . . . . perform all the duties and exercise all the powers conferred upon a Collector. . . . . . . . . . by this Act or any other law at the time being in force so far as regards the taluka or talukas in his charge. It is therefore clear to me that if a Deputy Collector or for that matter an Assistant Collector is placed in charge of one or more Talukas in the district the officer concerned can perform all the duties and exercise all the powers conferred upon a Collector either by the Land Revenue Code or by any other law for the time being in force in respect of the matters arising in the Taluka or Talukas in his charge. Mr. Shah strenuously urged before me that the definition given in the Bombay land Revenue Code cannot be considered or looked into for purposes of determining who is the competent authority to give permission as required under sec. 23-A of Rent Act and in submission of Mr. Shah it is only the Collector as defined under the Bombay General Clauses Act who can give such a permission inasmuch as he is a persona designata under the said section for purposes of giving necessary permission and no other officer or authority can be contends or delegated with that power which the Collector alone has to exercise under sec. 23a. I have not been able to appreciate how Mr. Shah contends in spite of the clear provision being made in Para 2 of sec. 10 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code where the Assistant or Deputy Collector placed in charge of Taluka or Talukas have been empowered to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers conferred upon a Collector either by the Land Revenue Code or by any other law for the time being in force that the Deputy Collector is not the competent authority to give such a permission; when an Assistant Collector or the Deputy Collector so exercises the powers or performs the duties they do the same as Collectors. If that is so the entire reasoning of Mr. Shah that because sec. 23a designates the Collector as the competent authority no other officer can exercise that power should be rejected. If that is so the entire reasoning of Mr. Shah that because sec. 23a designates the Collector as the competent authority no other officer can exercise that power should be rejected. ( 5 ) A similar question arose before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vishnu Dadu Lokhande v. Umabai (1955) LVII B. L. R. 816. The facts in that case were that certain lands in Karad taluka which belonged to one Vishwanath after his death in February 1948 devolved upon his widow Umabai-respondent-plaintiff before the Court. The lands were in the occupation of one Vishnu as a tenant and on February 3 1947 Vishwanath had served a notice upon the defendant terminating the tenancy as from March 31 1948 on the ground that the lands were required for personal cultivation. As the appellant-defendant refused to comply with the demand made in the notice the respondent-plaintiff filed on April 3 1948 an application before the Mamlatdar at Karad under sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 to recover possession of the lands. The application was decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by the Mamlatdar on June 2 1948 and she recovered possession of lands on June 23 1948 The appellant-defendant filed an appeal to the District Deputy Collector Karad Division North Satara District on June 30 1948 The appeal was heard by the Deputy Collector who on August 18/21 1948 reversed the order of the Mamlatdar and directed the respondent-plaintiff to restore the possession of the lands to the appellant-defendant. On August 23 1948 the respondent-plaintiff filed an application in revision to the Provincial Government against the order of Deputy Collector and applied for the stay of the execution of the order till the disposal of the revision application. On September 11 1948 the plaintiff filed a suit out of which the appeal before the Bombay High Court arose against the appellant-defendant in the court of Joint Civil Judge (J. P.) Karad for a declaration that she was entitled to retain possession of the lands and for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of the lands in enforcement of the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The defendant contended before the trial court that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the respondent plaintiff did not acquire the lands for personal cultivation. The defendant contended before the trial court that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the respondent plaintiff did not acquire the lands for personal cultivation. The trial Judge held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but on the grounds bona fide personal cultivation he dismissed the suit. In appeal the District Judge held that the respondent-plaintiff required the lands for personal cultivation and that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he therefore granted decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. The defendant therefore went in appeal before the Bombay High court. The view of the District court was that an appeal from a decision under sec. 24 sub-sec. (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1339 against the order of Mamlatdar can be entertained only by the Collector and not of the Deputy Collector who had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal against the decision of Mamlatdar to reverse his decision. The sole question which was argued before the Division Bench of the Bombay High court was whether the District Deputy Collector was competent to hear an appeal against an order passed by the Mamlatdar under sec. 24 sub-sec. (2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 and since the expression collector was not defined in the said Act nor was It defined in the Bombay Land Revenue Code and therefore the question was whether the Deputy Collector is within the meaning given to the word Collector under the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 should be considered. After considering that definition under the Bombay General Clauses Act 1904 the Division Bench considered the relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code namely secs. 8 to 10 and referred particularly to paragraphs 1 and 2 of sec. 10. According to the Division Bench for purposes of determining whether Deputy Collector has the power to hear the appeal against the order of Mamlatdar under sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 the two paragraphs namely paragraphs 1 and 2 of sec. 10 were material. Justice Shah as he then was speaking for the court after setting out relevant portion of sec. 10 held as under :the effect of sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 the two paragraphs namely paragraphs 1 and 2 of sec. 10 were material. Justice Shah as he then was speaking for the court after setting out relevant portion of sec. 10 held as under :the effect of sec. 10 is that once an Assistant or a Deputy Collector by an order of the Collector put in charge of revenue administration of one or more talukas in his district by the operation of the second paragraph of sec. 10 he is subject to territorial limitations statutorily invested with all the powers which are conferred upon the Collector by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force and is entitled to exercise the powers of a Collector under the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. The Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 is undoubtedly any other law in force within the meaning of sec. 10. It is undisputed in this case that the Deputy Collector who decided the appeal Sled by the defendant was placed in charge of the Karad taluka and having been so placed in charge he had under the second paragraph of sec. 10 jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Collector to hear appeals under sec. 24 of the Bombay Tenancy Act so far as regards the taluka in his charge. It appears that the provisions of sec. 10 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge and he held that the Collector of the district alone can exercise appellate powers under sec. 14 of the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 and not a Deputy Collector or an Assistant Collector. Mr. Jahagirdar who appears on behalf of the plaintiff has contended that even though the expression by this Act or any other law at the time being in force in the second paragraph of sec. 10 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is very wide the duties and the powers which an Assistant Collector or a Deputy Collector can exercise or perform relying upon the statutory delegation must in view of the first paragraph of sec. 10 relate to the revenue administration of the taluka. 10 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code is very wide the duties and the powers which an Assistant Collector or a Deputy Collector can exercise or perform relying upon the statutory delegation must in view of the first paragraph of sec. 10 relate to the revenue administration of the taluka. He contended that when the Collector can by order put his Assistant or Deputy in charge of the revenue administration of a taluka or talukas the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties by the Assistant Collector or the Deputy Collector must be in relation to the revenue administration of the taluka or talukas in his charge and not in performance of any other duties or exercise of other powers. According to Jahagirdar if the powers which are required to be exercised or the duties which are required to be discharged by the Collector do not relate to the revenue administration the jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Assistant or the Deputy Collector relying upon the provisions of sec. 10 para 2. In support of that contention Mr. Jahagirdar has pointed out to us certain provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 and the amendment made by the Legislature in that Act by Bombay Act XII of 1951. Mr. Jahagirdar has also relied upon a decision of a division bench of this court in Sonu v. Arjun (1915) 17 Bom. L. R. 579 decided under the Mamlatdars Courts Act of 1906. ( 6 ) REJECTING this contention the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under :in our view there is nothing in sec. 10 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which suggests that there is a limitation as to the nature of the law for the time being in force or as to the character of the jurisdiction to be exercised by the Assistant Collector or the Deputy Collector when he has been put in charge of a taluka. The words of the second paragraph of sec. 10 are explicit. They authorise the Assistant or the Deputy Collector once he has been put in charge of a taluka to exercise the powers of a Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or under any others law for the time being in force. The words of the second paragraph of sec. 10 are explicit. They authorise the Assistant or the Deputy Collector once he has been put in charge of a taluka to exercise the powers of a Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code or under any others law for the time being in force. It is true that the exercise of powers by an Assistant Collector or a Deputy Collector can only become effective if he is put in charge of the revenue administration of a taluka by order of the Collector. The more appointment by the State Government under sec. 9 of an Assistant Collector or a Deputy Collector does not confer upon an Assistant or a Deputy Collector the powers of a Collector. It is only when an Assistant or a Deputy Collector is put in charge of the revenue administration of a taluka that he is authorised to exercise the power of the Collector and to perform the duties of the Collector in regard to the taluka in his charge. . . . . . . . . The Division Bench thereafter referred to the decision in Sona v. Arjun (supra) on which a reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant-defendant. The division Bench also referred to an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Keshov v. Jairam (1911) 13 BLR 1031 The Division Bench found that the decisions in Sonu v. Arjun and Keshov v. Jairam (supra) were two conflicting decisions on the same point but since it would be open to the Division Bench to follow either of the two decisions decided under the Mamlatdars courts Act 1906 and Bombay Land Revenue Code the Division Bench would be willing to accept the decision expressed in Keshov v. Jairam. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Keshov v. Jairam held that there was no warrant in view of the provision of second paragraph of sec. 10 for holding that the powers under the other Act referred to therein are relating only to the revenge matters. Mr. Shah for the petitioner herein drew my attention that the question has been kept open by the Division Bench when it observed that for the decision in appeal before it it was necessary for them to decide the point. 10 for holding that the powers under the other Act referred to therein are relating only to the revenge matters. Mr. Shah for the petitioner herein drew my attention that the question has been kept open by the Division Bench when it observed that for the decision in appeal before it it was necessary for them to decide the point. In my opinion however the Division Bench has clearly expressed its view that there was no limitation on the nature of power in respect of questions arising under other law for the time being in force or as to the character of jurisdiction to exercise such powers by the Assistant or Deputy Collector when he has been put in charge of the Taluka by the Collector. In that view of the matter therefore I am of the opinion that the Deputy Collector has the jurisdiction to determine whether the permission as claimed for by respondent herein under sec. 23-A of the Rent Act of 1947 should be granted or not because the Deputy Collector was exercising the very powers of the Collector under the said section. In that view of the matter therefore since this is the only contention of Mr. Shah it should be rejected and the petition should be dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. .