( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE present appeals are directed against the order passed in revision by the High Court dismissing the revision petitions filed by the appellant. In order to appreciate the controversy we are herewith giving certain essential facts.

( 4 ) THE appellant is running a tourist hotel in the disputed premises. In the earlier proceedings for eviction before the High Court, the appellant was found to be in arrears of rent and hence directed, unless he deposits arrears of rent within a month, eviction against him is decreed. So far as order fixing rent is concerned, it was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the rent Controller for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on this order of the High court, wherein certain claims made by the tenant as against the landlord were referred to get it adjudicated from the civil court, for which he sought adjustment in the rent.

( 5 ) IT seems in spite of the aforesaid litigation and decree the appellant again fell into arrears of rent as no payment was made by him from september 1986 till February 1993 which led the landlord to file another suit for eviction for arrears of rent. Learned counsel for the landlord submits, even thereafter he did not pay till February 1999. It is not in dispute that the agreed rent is Rs 20,000 per month under an agreement with provision of 10% increase every year. The case of the appellant tenant is that towards renovation, construction of the building and furniture he spent rs 7,99,290. 52p. and coupled with other expenses on other construction, it comes to Rs 21,79,299. 33p. The tenant filed a petition for fixation of fair rent in the year 1988 in respect of schedule building as the fixation at Rs 20,000 per month agreed rent was excessive. The petition of the tenant was allowed by the Rent Controller and he fixed the rent of the building at Rs 9780 per month. Both, the landlord and the tenant filed appeal before the Appellate authority. The Appellate Authority relying upon the decision of the High court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and dismissed that of the tenant on the ground that the High Court has declared the provisions relating to fixation of fair rent, namely, Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act as unconstitutional and void. The Court hence fixed the rate of rent of the disputed building at Rs 20,000 per month, as contained in the agreed terms. Thereafter the tenant filed revision before the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord filed eviction petition in the year 1994 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act alleging huge amount of rent being in arrears as against the present appellant. The Rent Controller decreed the eviction petition of the landlord and the appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed by holding that the rent amount of Rs 12,46,000 is in arrears. At this point we further make it clear, initially the arrears were approximately to the tune of Rs 20,00,000 but seven lakhs from the security deposit were adjusted towards the said arrears, hence at the stage of revision the arrears still remained to the tune of Rs 12,46,000. During its pendency the High Court further directed the appellant to deposit rupees seven lakhs as a condition precedent before hearing of the appeal itself. This amount was deposited by the appellant. The High Court finally dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant, holding that the decision of issae is fully applicable and covers the field. Therefore, the fixation of fair rent under the aforesaid Act does not arise. It is against this order the present appeals have been preferred.

( 6 ) MR Krishnamoorthy Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits, in view of the fixation of the fair