Basheer, J.

Is the tenant liable to pay interest on the arrears of fair rent from the date of his re-induction into the reconstructed building or does the liability arise only from the date when the fair rent is fixed by the court?

2. When the above contentious issue came up for consideration, the Rent Control Court held that the tenant would be liable to pay interest on the arrears only from the date of fixation of fair rent. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority took the view that the landlord was entitled to get interest from the date of re-induction itself. The above order passed by the appellate authority is under challenge, at the instance of the tenant, in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’).

3. It is not in dispute that the building was reconstructed at the intervention of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. At the time of re-induction, the landlord demanded Rs.6,000 per month from the tenant as fair rent. But the tenant offered Rs. 2,000 per month, till the fair rent was fixed by the court as contemplated under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

4. It is the admitted position that the tenant was put in possession of the reconstructed building even before the fair rent was fixed. The landlord had preferred an application for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Control Court in 1986 immediately after re-inducting the tenant. By order dated March 27,1991 the court fixed the fair rent at Rs. 4,200 per month. The said order was ultimately confirmed by the revisional authority.

5. It is the common case of the parties that the tenant had been remitting the rent at the rate of Rs.2,000 from the date of his re-induction, viz. January 27,1986. After fixation of fair rent, the landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act alleging that the tenant had failed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.4,200 per month as fixed by the court with interest thereon from the date of his re-induction, viz. January 27,1986. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition and held that the landlord was entitled to get the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.4,200 with effect from January 27,1986. But it took the view that interest at the rate of 6% was payable only from the date on which the court had passed the order fixing the fair rent.

6. The landlord challenged the above order of the Rent Control Court before the appellate authority contending that the tenant was liable to pay interest on the arrears of rent from the date of re-induction itself. The appellate authority accepted the said contention and reversed the order of the Rent Control Court. The order of the appellate authority is challenged by the tenant in this revision petition.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that his liability to pay interest on the arrears would arise only from the date on which the fair rent was fixed and not from the date of re-induction, since at that time the rate of rent was not determined.

8. As mentioned earlier, the tenant had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month as against the demand of Rs.6,000 made by the landlord. It is true that the landlord had filed the petition for fixation of fair rent in the year 1986 itself. But the court passed final order in the case only on March 27,1991 by which the tenant was directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.4,200.

9. It is contended by the tenant that he would be liable to pay interest only if he had committed any default in remitting the rent. The court fixed the fair rent only on March 27,1991 and therefore he could not have been treated as a defaulter, right from the date of his re-induction. Though he was bound to pay rent at the revised rate from the date of his re-induction, the liability to pay interest cannot be fastened on him as though he had committed default in payment.

10. But it is contended by t