The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Control Act is a special Act that does not permit a tenant to claim benefits under S.4 of Act 29 of 1958 and that the Rent Control Court is not expected to go into the question of value of improvements.

1. This revision petition filed by a tenant in a proceeding, R.C.P. No.1/82 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Parur, instituted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, is directed against an order passed in I.A. No. 2130/82, which was a petition for issue of a commission to ascertain the value of certain matters mentioned therein. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein in R.C.A. No. 25/83

before the Appellate Authority. This appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellate order was challenged in R.C.R.P. No. 20/83 before the District Court, Parur. The learned Addl. District Judge, who heard the revision found that the appeal is maintainable; but, on merits dismissed the petition upholding the order of the first court.

2. Strongly assailing this order, Shri M. K. Narayana Menon, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner urged three points before this Court.

(1) Whether S.17(2) of the Act is a bar for claiming improvements in a proceeding under the Act?

(2) Whether the Rent Controller can go into the question of improvements?

(3) The revisional court having found that the appeal is maintainable should not have gone into the merits of the case but ought to have remitted the case to the appellate court.

3. The learned advocate very vehemently contended that what was claimed in the petition was issue of a commission to ascertain the improvements effected on land as well as on the building and therefore S.17(2) is not a bar for consideration of such an application as that section applies only to repairs and maintenance of buildings. It was also contended that the right to claim improvements is a substantial right conferred on the petitioner under S.4 of Act 29 of 1958 and that right is not taken away by the provisions of S.17(2) of the Act. It was argued that S.17(2) is only an enabling provision and that this section does not curtail or reduce the right of a tenant under Act 29 of 1958. The counsel also pointed out that the Rent Control Court has jurisdiction to issue a commission by virtue of the provisions in S.23(1)(g) of the Act. The counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1981 KLT.179 in support of the contention that the Rent Control Court has power to issue a commission for ascertaining the existence of improvements and their value. It was further argued that the court below did not consider the question whether Act 29 of 1958 applied to the present case or not. According to the counsel, the decision reported in 1972 KLT.188 has no application to the facts of the case and a decision of the erstwhile Cochin High Court in 39 Cochin 194(D. B.) is exactly on the "point, which decision has clearly laid down that in a case of this nature the tenant is entitled to claim value of improvements.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent pointed out that none of these points has been raised or urged by the tenant or on behalf of him before the courts below; that the claim for improvement is a new case put forward for the first time before this Court; that what the tenant wanted before the Rent Control Court was only to issue a commission to ascertain the amount incurred by him for effecting repairs and maintenance so that the amount so assessed may be set off from the arrears of rent due from him. A copy of the petition and the affidavit filed in support of the petition were shown to me in the Court. What is claimed in the affidavit in support of I. A. 2130/82 in R C.P. 1/82 is that the tenant is entitled to get Rs. 2500/- being amounts spent by him for the maintenance of the building and Rs. 2000/-for levelling up the lands and the same may be set off towards the arrears of rent due from him. The counsel for the respondent submitted that this is a frivolous petition filed only to protract the proceedings and that subsequent to this petition about half a dozen petitions have been filed by the tenant to protract the proceedings. From the petition and af