JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar (respondent No. 2) dated November 1, 1982 (Annexure 2) by which he has directed the petitioner to restore the electric connection of the respondent No. 3 and also for quashing the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated June 9, 1983 (Annexure 5), dismissing the appeal against the said order Annexure 2. 2. None is present for and on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the orders under challenge. The learned Government Advocate submits that it is a dispute in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. 4. Admittedly, by his order dated November 11, 1982, Annexure 2, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Nohar has directed the petitioner under Section 12(4), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called the Act) to restore the electric connection which he was enjoying in the shop in his possession and tenancy. Before December 1, 1982, the tenant Rajendra singh (respondent No. 3) moved an application (Annexure 3) stating that he has received summons alongwith a copy of the plaint from the court showing that the petitioner's husband Om Prakash is landlord of the disputed shop and not the petitioner and praying that the name of the petitioner's husband Om Prakash be substituted in place of the petitioner Mst. Rama in his application moved under Section 12 (3) of the Act. By order dated December 1, 1982 (Anx. 4), the said application was allowed and it was ordered that notice be issued to Om Prakash. 5. The petitioner Mst. Rama filed an appeal against the order dated November 11, 1982 under Section 22 (3) of the Act before the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. He transferred it to the Additional District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. This appeal was mainly on the ground that the appellant Mst. Rama was not a landlord and as such no order could be passed under Section 12 (4) of the Act against her. Despite the application Annexure 3 and order dated December 1, 1982 (Anx. 4), the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dismissed the appeal. It is clear from the provisions of Section 12 of the Act that an application under it can be moved by a tenant against his landlord and not against a third person. Despite the application Annexure 3 and order dated December 1, 1982 (Anx. 4), the learned Additional District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dismissed the appeal. It is clear from the provisions of Section 12 of the Act that an application under it can be moved by a tenant against his landlord and not against a third person. The Additional District Magistrate seriously erred in dismissing the appeal of Mst.Rama. To say the least his order is perverse particularly when the respondent Rajendra Singh himself had moved an application (Anx. 3) for the substitution of the name of appellant's husband Om Prakash in place of the appellant Mst. Rama. 6. An objection has also been taken by the appellant that the order Annexure 2 could not be passed without issuing notice. Section 12(4) of the Act provides that an interim order can be passed without notice to the landlord. 7. A ground has also been taken in the writ petition that under Section 22, the District Magistrate has jurisdiction and not the Additional District Magistrate. The State Government in the Home Department has issued Notification No. F1-12 (3) Home/5/84 dated October 1, 1984. It runs as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1973), the State Government hereby appoints All Additional District Magistrates to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan Act 17 of 1950) within their jurisdiction." As such this ground has no substance. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated November 11, 1982 (Annexure 2) and also order dated June 9, 1983 (Annexure 5) are quashed. No order as to costs. *******