1. This revision under S.115 CPC. is by the tenants of a building and arises out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent initiated at the instance of the landlord. The main question in dispute relates to the provision of law which should apply to the present case, namely, whether sub-s. (2) or (3) of S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965.

2. The building is a non-residential one and appears to have been continuously in the occupation of the tenants revision petitioners as early as from the year 1939. It is submitted by the revision petitioners that there is no definite finding by any of the courts below as to whether there was property tax in respect of the building at the time of its letting. However, the observation of the Rent Controller that there was no Panchayat in existence at the time of the letting of the building is not seriously challenged before me. If that be so, there is no likelihood of property tax having been fixed by the Panchayat or Municipality for this building at the time of letting.

3. The entrustment of the building to the revision petitioners is stated to be under an oral arrangement on a rental of Rs. 2/- per annum. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent, mostly basing his conclusion on a report submitted by the commissioner, at Rs, 10/-per mensem. The learned counsel submits that this increase is not only unwarranted in terms of the provisions of the Act, but also out of all proportions, as it works out at 60 times of the original rent.

4. Incidentally the question as to what should be the Act which should apply, whether Act 16 of 1959 or 2 of 1965, also has arisen. The proceeding started in the year 1963 was pending at the time when Act 2 of 1965 came into force The proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.34 of the Act 2 of 1965 reads as follows:-"Provided that any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy which could have been instituted, continued or enforced under the said Act if it had not expired, may be instituted continued or enforced under the corresponding provisions of this Act."

This proviso makes it clear that pending proceedings are to be continued under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to examine the various provisions relating to fixation of fair rent contained in sub-sections (1) to (3) of S.5 of Act 16 of 1959, as fair rent in the present case has to be fixed under the provisions of Act 2 of 1965.

5. Now, before entering into the main question, one other incidental point that has been raised by Sri. P. C. Balakrishna Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, has to be dealt with. That point relates to the question as to whether the building has been or has not been assessed to property tax, which, according to the learned counsel, is a pertinent one in proceedings relating to fixation of fair rent. As has already been stated, this proceedings was initiated at the instance of the landlord. However, in the application, which has been read over to me, there are no averments as to whether the building bad been assessed to property tax. and if so, what the tax was. My attention has been drawn to the provisions contained in R.7 and 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1959, which, I am told, are still in force. Sub-rule (1) of R.7 reads as follows:

"Every application under the Act shall, in addition to the particulars necessary to support it, contain also the particulars prescribed in R.12 so far as they may be applicable and every application for eviction under S.11 shall also state the grounds on which the application is made."

The relevant portion of R.12 is extracted below:

"The particulars to be furnished under S.27 shall be the following:

(10) Rental value as entered in the property tax assessment of the Municipal Council, Panchayat or Local Board, as the case may be.

S. 26 of the Act (Act 2 of 1965) provides that executive authorities of local bodies are to furnis