1. Aggrieved by order dated 06.12.2008, passed by District Judge, Anantnag in the appeal captioned Mohammad Rafiq Bhat & anr. v. Ghulam Hassan Wagay, both the parties have filed two revision petitions, one captioned Ghulam Hassan Wagay v. Mohammad Rafiq Bhat & Anr. (C. Rev.185/2008) and another captioned Mohammad Rafiq Bhat & anr v. Ghulam Hassan Wagay (C. Rev. No. 10/2009). 2. In the three storeyed building situated at Lal Chowk Anantnag, Ghulam Hassan Wagay (petitioner in C. Rev. No. 185/2009) (hereinafter referred to as the tenant), is in possession of two shops located in the ground floor. Respondents Mohammad Rafiq Bhat & another (petitioners in C. Rev. No. 10/2009 (hereinafter referred to as the owners) are the owners of the said building. 3. In the intervening night of 22/23rd December, 2007, the said building gutted in fire. The Municipal authorities served a notice to the owners on 08.01.2008 to the effect that the building being in dilapidated condition and unsafe be demolished so as to avoid any untoward incident. 4. The tenant filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Court of Munsiff, Anantnag. Applications filed alongside the suit for interim relief were disposed on 02.06.2008 with the direction to the parties to maintain status quo as on spot on the said date till final disposal of the main suit, with liberty to the parties to invoke Jurisdiction of the proper forum under the provisions of J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. 5. Picking up thread from the operative part of the order, the tenant filed an application under Section 27 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller (Sub Judge), Anantnag on 22.05.2008 claiming therein that upper two storeys of the said building gutted in fire but no damage has been caused to the ground floor where two shops are in his possession so he continue to conduct his business. The repairs are required so as to avoid damage to the shops due to rain/snow. 6. The said application has been allowed vide dated 15.11.2008 where-under the owners have been directed to effect repairs within twenty five days, in default tenant shall be entitled to effect the repairs. The repairs are required so as to avoid damage to the shops due to rain/snow. 6. The said application has been allowed vide dated 15.11.2008 where-under the owners have been directed to effect repairs within twenty five days, in default tenant shall be entitled to effect the repairs. It has also been made clear that the observations made in the order shall remain confined to the disposal of said application so shall not debar any authority including Municipal Council, Anantnag to take any proceedings qua the premises in terms of law applicable. It has further been observed that the order shall not debar the owners from seeking redressal of their grievances qua the tenanted premises against the tenant to which they are entitled to under law including the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. 7. Aggrieved by the said order passed by Rent Controller (Sub Judge), Anantnag, the owner filed appeal before the Court of District Judge, Anantnag on 01.12.2008. The said appeal has been decided vide order dated 06.12.2008. 8. Before the Appellate Court, learned counsel for the owners had projected that the building which gutted in fire is in dilapidated condition, the Municipal Authorities have issued notice for its demolition but the tenant first by filing suit for permanent injunction, then by filing application under Section 27 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act has prevented the owners from demolishing the building, it was added that the owners on demolition shall reconstruct the building and on reconstruction two shops will be given to the tenant but the counsel for the tenant had projected that since it is not known as to how much time it will take to the owners in obtaining permission and then for construction of the building, therefore, Rent Controller rightly permitted the repairs and while doing so has observed that in absence of roofing of the tenanted premises, it shall be exposed to vagaries of nature and would not be inhabitable and useable condition, therefore, fixing of wooden trusses and CGI sheets/roofing falls within the definition of repairs' in terms of Section 27 of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. Learned counsel for the owners had projected that the tenant had not obtained any such permission for roofing from the Municipal authorities, secondly if that roofing is permitted, then owners will be deprived from raising construction of the building beyond ground floor when admittedly building was three storeyed, therefore, allowing roofing at the ground floor and then to deprive the owner to raise construction (subject to permission from Municipal authorities) shall be harsh. 9. In the aforesaid background, learned District Judge has disposed of the appeal and while modifying order of the Rent Controller has directed as under: "The impugned order appears to be legally sound but in my opinion requires to be modified to the extent that the Rent Controller shall bound down the parties so as to safeguard their interests i.e. to frame a time schedule for the appellants to reconstruct the whole building within a specific time scheduled to be decided by the Rent Controller as also to obtain an undertaking from the appellants to bound them down so as to handover the possession of the shops to the respondent which would be in the interests of justice, which safeguards are otherwise contained in the Act itself. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of and remanded back to the Rent Controller for passing appropriate orders in the light of above said observations". 10. Learned counsel for the owners contended that the application under Section 27 was not tenable because the building has gutted in fire, to allow repairs, that too by asking roofing of the two shops at the ground floor, shall be to deprive the owners of their valuable right, furthermore the said roofing could not be permitted in absence of permission from the Municipal authorities when the Municipal authorities have issued notice for demolition of the whole building being unsafe with the object of avoiding any untoward incident. 11. Learned counsel for the tenant on the other-side contended that the tenants have been in possession of two shops for quite long time and their position of being tenant is not disputed, therefore, if the demolition of the building is permitted, the tenant would be deprived of the valuable rights and if the tenanted premises is not roofed, both the two shops will be exposed to damage due to rain/snow. 12. While considering the rival submissions, it is true that both the parties have equal rights. 12. While considering the rival submissions, it is true that both the parties have equal rights. The question is as to whether roofing could be permitted by the Municipal authorities when they have issued two notices, one on 8.1.2008 for demolition of the building and another on 06.12.2008. If the demolition is unavoidable so as to avoid any untoward incident, then the question of roofing the tenanted premises shall not be permissible. Learned Rent Controller has not anywhere said or considered the question of permission for repairs from the Municipal authorities, secondly it has also not been considered as to whether owners had applied for permission for reconstruction of the building. These aspects have remained to be considered, therefore, both the orders passed by Rent Controller as also by District Judge are liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be looked into afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove. 13. Now again question arises as to who shall look into these aspects because the Jammu and Kashmir (Residential and Commercial Tenancy) Act, 2012 notified in the month of. April, 2012, has come into force. Section 42 of the said Act reads as unden- "42. Repeal and savings.—(1) The Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done, any action taken, any order or notification issued under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done, taken or issued under the corresponding provisions of the Act as if this Act was in force on the date, such thing was done, action taken or order or notification was issued. (3) subject to the provisions of section 39 all cases and proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of the Act, shall be continued and disposed off by the Rent Controller or Appellate Rent Tribunal, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act. (3) subject to the provisions of section 39 all cases and proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of the Act, shall be continued and disposed off by the Rent Controller or Appellate Rent Tribunal, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act. (4) the plaintiff, within a period of 90 days of coming into force of the Act shall, however, be entitled to withdraw any suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under the repealed Act with liberty to file fresh petition in respect of the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any other proceeding under, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Act and for the purposes of limitation such petition shall, if it is filed within a period of 180 days from the commencement of the Act, be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the suit which was so withdrawn and in case of withdrawal of appeal or other proceedings on the date on which the suit was filed ovit of which such appeal or proceedings originated". It is clear from sub-section (3) of Section 42 that subject to the provisions of Section 39, all cases and proceedings pending under the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act at the commencement of this Act shall be continued and disposed of by the Rent Controller or Appellant Rent Tribunal, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of repealed Act. 14. Section 39 of the Act of 2012 provides that all cases or proceedings in execution of any decree pending in Courts under the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 shall stand transferred to the Rent Controller or Appellate Rent Tribunal specified under the Act and the concerned authorities shall proceed to hear such cases either de-novo or from the stage it was at the time of such transfer. 15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, as noticed hereinabove, the subject matter of dispute has to be looked into afresh. Therefore, the revision petitions are allowed. Both the orders passed by Rent Controller (Sub Judge) Anantnag and by the Appellate Court (District Judge, Anantnag) are set aside. The Rent Controller (Sub Judge), Anantnag shall transfer the proceedings to the Authority prescribed under the aforesaid Act of 2012 for disposal. Therefore, the revision petitions are allowed. Both the orders passed by Rent Controller (Sub Judge) Anantnag and by the Appellate Court (District Judge, Anantnag) are set aside. The Rent Controller (Sub Judge), Anantnag shall transfer the proceedings to the Authority prescribed under the aforesaid Act of 2012 for disposal. Until appearance of the parties before the concerned Authority under the Act of 2012, status quo on spot shall be maintained. Pending disposal of the pleadings, continuation or discontinuation of status quo after the parties appear before the Authority under the Act of 2012, shall be decided by the said Authority. 16. Trial court record along with copy of the order be send back forthwith.