( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 7th April, 1980 of the Additional Controller fixing the interim rent of the suit premises at Rs. 201. 60 per month with effect from 1st April, 1980,

( 2 ) THE Appellants took on rent the premises at A-1, Model Town, Delhi at Rs. 500. 00 per month with effect from 15th May, 1971. An application for fixation of standard rent was filed on 18th September, 1 972 claiming standard rent at Rs. 95. 00 per month. The Additional Controller fixed interim rent effective from 1st April, 1980, The appellants filed an appeal without any success. Hence this second appeal.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has raised two questions : (i) that the interim rent of Rs. 201. 60 is excessive and (ii) that the interim rent should be made effective within the meaning of Section 9 (7) of the Act i. e. from a date within one year of the filing of the application for fixation of standard rent. As regards the first question, it appears that the matter regarding fixation of standard rent is still pending and it is only a temporary arrangement that the Additional Controller determined the estimated cost of construction at 32. 25. and determined the interim rent at Rs. 201. 60 per month. No substantial question of law is raised as regards quantum. The interim rent being a temporary measure, I do not propose to interfere with the same in the second appeal. The interim rent fixed by the Additional Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal, however, is not a bar for the appellants to agitate for the fixation of standard rent at a lower figure in the proceedings pending before the Additional Controller.

( 4 ) THE next question is from what date the interim rent should be made effective. The standard rent application was filed on 18th September, 1972 while the tenancy commenced from 15th May, 1971. Section 9 (7) of the Act reads as under :

"section 9 (7) : In fixing the standard rent of any premises under this section, the Controller shall specify a date from which the standard rent so fixed shall be deemed to have effect : Provided that in no case the date so specified shall be earlier than one year prior to the date of the filing of the application for the fixation of the standard rent. "

( 5 ) UNDER this section standard rent is to be fixed from a date to be specified by the Controller and such date cannot be earlier than one year prior to the date of filing of the application for fixation of standard rent. The application, as already stated, was filed on 18th September, 1972. Thus the standard rent if and when fixed may bemade effective under Section 9 (7) of the Act with effect from 18th September, 1971. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :

"section 10 : Fixation of interim rent : If an application for fixing the standard rent or for determining the lawful increase of such rent is made under Section 9, the Controller shall, as expeditiously as possible, make an order specifying the amount of the rent or the lawful increase to be paid by the tenant to the landlord pending final decision on the application and shall appoint the date from which the rent of lawful increase so specified shall be deemed to have effect. "

( 6 ) UNDER this provision no application in writing for fixation of interim rent is necessary. It is for the Controller to fix the interim rent as expeditiously as possible in all applications filed for fixation of standard rent or for determining the lawful increase of such rent. In the present case, interim rent, it appears, was not fixed for a period of about 8 years. The appellants filed application for fixation of interim rent on 30th April, 1979. Section 10 also does not specify the date from which the interim rent, if any, determined by the Controller is to take effect. Learned counsel for