The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fair-rent should be fixed in accordance with the mandatory provisions of S.5(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, which require consideration of the property tax or house tax fixed for the building and allow a maximum increase of 15 per cent.

1. In this revision on behalf of the tenant-petitioner, Mr. T. M. Mhaalinga Iyer, learned counsel, challenges the orders of the two subordinate courts fixing fair-rent, making a different approach, for the properties in question.

2. There is no controversy that the petitioner has taken, under a common lease, the three items concerned; and according to the petitioner the contract rent is a sum of Rs. 200/-per month.

3. The petitioner filed an application under S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 (Act ZVI of 1959) as amended, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, for fixation of fair-rent for the

building. It was the claim of the petitioner that the buildings were originally given municipal numbers, as Nos. 144,145 and 146, by the Alwaye Municipality; and later on the items after being renumbered as 220, 202 and 203 respectively now bear the municipal numbers 229, 230 and 232.

4. The petitioner no doubt wanted the fair rent to be fixed at Rs. 53/-per month on the basis that the municipal assessment for these properties at the time of letting in 1124 was Rs. 200/-,146/-and 100/-respectively. No doubt he has made certain other claims regarding adjustment to be made, of what according to him, are excess payments stated to have been made.

5. There is also no controversy, that the present respondent in the revision, has acquired title to the properties concerned and that being a company, it contested the claim of the petitioner on various grounds. They have referred to the fact that an application for eviction had already been filed and that a suit for recovery of arrears had also been instituted in the District Court. More than all these, so far as the claim of the petitioner was concerned, the respondent urged that what was originally a shed in item 1 was reconstructed in 1956-57; and the monthly rent for all the properties was fixed at Rs. 250/- with an arrangement entered into to the effect that a sum of R.50/-is to be adjusted, from and out of the rent, towards the amount stated to have been borrowed by the original first respondent in the R. C. P. 4/62, from the revision petitioner.

6. After referring to the original municipal door numbers of these buildings and the re-numbering of the buildings later on, the respondent accepted that the municipal assessment, as it now stands for the three buildings is Rs. 315/-,360/- and 540 respectively. But they also urged that the shed in item 1, has been reconstructed at an expense of about Rs. 600/-and therefore the municipal assessment for item 1, which no doubt as found in the municipal registers as Rs. 315/-, will have to be added on to the Rs. 600/-thus making a total assessment of Rs. 915/-. On this basis, the respondent urged that the total annual assessment for these three items will be Rs. 1215/-; and therefore they urged that the sum of Rs. 200/-which is the contract rent payable by the petitioner is proper and that amount can be fixed by the Rent Controller as the fair-rent. The respondent had instituted in the Additional District Court at Parur, a suit O. S.45/61 as against the petitioner, for recovery of arrears of rent at the contract rate for the period 24 3 59 to 22 c 61; and they claimed rent at the same rate for the future also.

7. That suit appears to have been decreed; but that was the subject of appeal by the petitioner, in this Court, as A. S.287/63. That appeal was dealt with by my learned brothers, Mr. Justice Joseph and Mr. Justice Raghavan by their judgment dated 5th October 1964; a certified copy of the judgment has been marked in these proceedings as Ext. D 10. The only aspect that now requires to be noted and decided by the learned judges in that appeal, is regarding the first point that arose for decision, before the learned judges. The learned judges have stated, that in decreeing the claim of the plaintiff at the contract rate, the lower court has missed to take note of the amendment effected to S.8 (2) of the Act; and fi