This revision is filed by landlord questioning the order dated 8.8.2002 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry in R.C.A No. 26 of 1999.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows,

The petitioner-landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent vide R.C.C.No. 68 of 1992 before the Rent Controller (Principal Junior Civil Judge,) Rajahmundry. On trial, the learned Rent Controller enhanced the rent from existing Rs.50/- to Rs.300/- per month with effect from the date of application under Section 4 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") i.e., 13.5.1992. The learned Rent Controller also ordered that the landlord shall be entitled for enhancement of rent at the rate of 30% over the existing rent once in three years. The tenant questioned the said order before the Appellate Authority (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry vide R.C.A.Nos. 26 of 1999 which has been partly allowed under the impugned order. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the Rent Controller's order fixing the rent at Rs.300/- per month, but has interfered with it in respect of periodical increase of rent by 30% for every three years on the ground that under Section 4 of the Act the Rent Controller has no such jurisdiction to order periodical increase while fixing the rent. It is this part of the Appellate Authority's order which is questioned by the landlord in this revision.

3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord contends that the power to fix the rent under Section 4 of the Act also includes the power to direct the periodical increase over the rent fixed. The learned counsel would also contend that the power exercised by the learned Rent Controller found in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Suresh Gir Vs. K. Sahadev 1. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-tenants contends that in view of the fact that sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 4 of the Act have been held unconstitutional in the above referred decision of Suresh Gir, the learned Rent Controller has no power to direct periodical increase of rent by 30% over the existing rent fixed. The learned counsel would also contend that the Appellate Authority has not gone into the aspect as to whether the periodical increase of rent is justified or not in view of its answer to the first question on the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller to order periodical increase.

5. In the light of the above, I have considered this matter earnestly. Sections 4 to 6 of the Act provided for entire mechanism relating to fixation of fair rent. It is, no doubt, true that the criteria fixed under sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 4 of the Act was held to have become illusory and accordingly struck down in the above referred decision of Suresh Gir. The striking down of sub- sections (2) to (4) of Section 4 of the Act was primarily on the ground that the criteria provided for working of sub-sections has been rendered illusory on account of passage of time. It is unfortunate that the legislature has not amended the Section 4 of the Act thereafter to provide realistic criteria in place of sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 4 of the Act which existed earlier. In any event, since sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is valid and upheld, the Rent Controller would be fully justified in fixing the rent on the criteria of "just and reasonable" as laid down in the aforesaid decision of Suresh Gir. Thus the power of the Rent Controller to fix the fair rent cannot be disputed. Similarly once the power to fix the rent is considered, the periodical increase of rent is also part of that power. It has to be remembered that the Rent Controller was fixing the rent as on the date of application by the landlord which preceded couple of years before the actual fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, therefore, would certainly take in