Radhakrishnan, J.

Justice without law, according to Roscoe Pound on Jurisprudence is “Justice according to magisterial good sense unhampered by rule”. Recognition of a body of binding standards of adjudication is well high indispensable for the proper discharge of judicial functions. Justice cannot be accomplished without an orderly system of law.

2. Many a times this court has reminded the State Government of the necessity of bringing in proper legislation to curb unethical trend in rack rending, demand of huge amount as pakidi, laying down provision and procedure for fixation of fair rent, and for fixing forum for fixing fair rent etc. Pegging down of rent has created unethical and unlawful practice of paying pakidi to landlords. Static rent has created block market in rental housing. Such tendencies have restricted the accessibility of low income group to rental housing and are compelled to pay huge amount by way of pakidi. Responsible Government shall not keep away from these realities faced by the society. Lack of legislation has also resulted in multiplicity of litigations in civil courts. Rent Control Courts etc. The apex court in Imdad Ali V. Keshav Chand and Others (2003) 4 SCC 635) has held that Rent Act is a beneficial legislation not only for tenants, but for landlords as well. Fixation of fair rent is a provision which is beneficial for both, fair to landlord and tenant.

3. Learned single judge of this Court, R.Bhaskaran, J. having confronted with a situation of lack of proper legislation referred the matter to larger bench to lay down appropriate guidelines for guidance of the civil court when dealing with fixation of fair rent of the tenanted premises, a task to be undertaken by the legislature. Lack of proper legislation in the area has led to several litigations and has created unrest in the society. Complaints are also there that by demanding huge amounts by way of 'pakidi' the rights of the tenant under the second limb of the second proviso to Sec.11(3) has been effectively set at naught. We cannot shut out eyes to these realities in public interest.

4. SA.995/01 was filed by the landlord against the judgment and decree in AS.160 of 2000 of Sub Court, Kozhikode. Tenant also failed appeal, SA.384 of 2002 against the same judgment. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment in OS.1996 of Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. Tenanted premises consists of two rooms and two lean-tos which was rented out to the tenant in the year 1982 for a monthly rent of Rs.90/-. Tenant as not amenable to revise rent in spite of repeated request. Consequently after 14 years plaintiff instituted the present suit for fixation of fair rent. Plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq. ft. The tenanted premises is approximately 436 sq, ft. He claimed for monthly rent at Rs.2160/-. Tenant resisted the suit stating that the rent claimed is exorbitant and that there is no justification in fixing the fair rent. Further it was also stated that the suit filed for fixing the fair rent is not maintainable.

5. Trial court took the view that since tenant is a statutory tenant being a tenant holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of property Act he is liable to pay rent only on the basis of the erstwhile contact by which the building was entrusted to him. Trial court therefore held suit filed for fixing the fair rent is not maintainable in the absence of any enactment which enables the landlord to get the fair rent fixed. Trial court however, went on to examine the question on merits in view of the mandate under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. After examining the oral and documentary evidence trial court came to the conclusion that Rs.7/- per sq. ft. claimed by the landlord was excessive and the court fixed rent at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. ft. to the plaint schedule shop rooms having a total extent of 436 sq. ft. which would work out to Rs.872/- per month. Court noticed that on the said fixation plaintiff would get ten fold increase in th