( 1 ) THESE revision petitions arise under Rent Control Act. C. R. P. No. 180 of 1983 is at the instance of the landlord and C. R. P. No. 1953/85 is at the instance of the tenant. The landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 350 per month under Sec. 4 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 at Rs. 350/- p. m. The rent payable at the time was Rs. 90/ -. The enhancement was sought for on the ground that there is continous increase in labour charges, maintance charges, municipal taxes and the rents prevailing in the locality. This is resisted by the tenant on the ground that the house is an old one and it requires major repairs in addition to the white-washing of the house and the tenant is only a State government employee of L. D. C. cardre and hence the claim for enhancement is not sustainable. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy secretary to Government, Accomodation Department, it was stated that the enhancement of rent is not justified as the increase in labour charges and maintenance charges are not relevant for the purpose of enhancement and in any event the fair rent claimed is excessive. The Rent Controller having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and taking into consideration the general increase in cost of living and cost of maintenance and also in view of the fact the rent was fixed 16 years ago fixed the rent of 150/- p. m. Aggrieved by this order the land-lord filed an appeal. The appellate authority taking into consideration the guide-lines in G. O. Ms. No. 1302 dated 18-5-1966 arrived at the conclusion that the rent of Rs. 275/-p. m. is fair and equitable. Aggrieved by this decision both the landlord as well as the tenant filed revision petition.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the land-lord contended that the premises is big one with six big halls and varandah with all the provisions and amenities having plinth area of 990 sq. ft and spacious ope n place and considering the spun in prices and the demand the premises would easily fetch an amount of not less than Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- p. m. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Rent Control Act were not taken into consideration by the appellate authority and no cogent reasons have been assigned for enhancing the rent from Rs. 150/- to 275/- p. m.

( 3 ) APART from the contentions on merits Sri B. Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the landlord raised a far-reaching contention namely that S. 4 (2)of the Rent Control Act providing fixation of fair rent on the basis of rents prevailing in the locality for similar accomodation during the twelve months prior to 5th April, 1944 is outmoded and far removed from the current increase in prices and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Sri Omprakash misra, learned counsel for the tenant contended that the tenant is the government employee and the date for fixing the fair rent provided in Sec. 4 is in consonance with the objects of the Act to avoid exploitation of the tenants and arbitrary increase in rents at the instance of the land-lords and the provision designed to safeguard the interests of the tenants cannot be considered as arbitrary and hence Section 4 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) SRI Misra raised a preliminary objection as to the consideration of constitutional validity of the provision on the grounds that the Government is not made a party and this Court while considering the revision/under Sec. 22 of the Act cannot consider the constitutional validity of the provision. The government Pleader is put on notice and Sri N. Subba Reddy, the Government pleader appeared. While considering the revision petition the High court has ample power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constition to consider the constitutional validity of the provision.

( 5 ) SECTION 4 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called