The interpretation of statutory provisions, especially in relation to the determination of fair rent, should be based on the language and purpose of the statute, ensuring fairness and reasonableness in the application of the law.

1. The Petitioners are the owners of a house within the Tellicherry Municipality of which the 1st respondent entered into occupation as a tenant on 23-3-1952 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and has since been in occupation. She was content to pay rent at the agreed rate till 1-7-1959. Thereafter she paid no rent with the result that the petitioners sent her a registered notice threatening her with eviction on the ground of the non-payment. Her answer to this was to make an application to the Rent Control Court under S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 16 of 1959) praying that, under the proviso to subsection (2) of that section, the fair rent of the building be fixed at Rs. 17.25, the monthly rent on the basis of which house tax for the building had been fixed by the municipality being Rs. 15/-. It was not disputed that this was the monthly rent on the basis of which house tax was fixed for the year in which the 1st respondent's tenancy commenced, and, taking the view that the proviso referred to fixed the ceiling at 15% more than this rent, the Rent Control Court allowed the 1st respondent's application and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 17.25 with effect from 1-1-1960, the date of the application. Against this order the 1st respondent appealed under S.18 of the Act praying for a refund or adjustment of the rent paid in excess for a period of three years immediately before the date of her application, that is from 1-1-1957, and the petitioners came to this court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Rent Control Court, and a writ of prohibition to restrain the appellate authority from hearing the 1st respondent's appeal, on the ground that S.5 (2) and 8 (1) of the Act were void for offending Art.14,19 (1) (f) and (g) and 31 of the Constitution. Their petition for the purpose is now before us having been referred by the Single Judge before whom it came on for hearing to a Division Bench, and, in turn, by the Division Bench to a Full Bench.

2. It is the petitioners' case - and this case stands uncontradicted - that since 1954 the municipal assessment in respect of the house has been on the basis of a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. If the current assessment, current that is at the time of the application for fixing the fair rent, and not to the assessment at the time of the letting, is to determine the ceiling under the proviso in question, the petitioners have no grievance.

3. S.5 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, runs (so far as is material) as follows:

"5. Determination of fair rent- (1) The Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit.

(2) In fixing the fair rent the court shall take into consideration the property tax or house tax fixed for the building at the time of letting in the property tax register or house-tax register of the local authority within whose area the building is situated:

Provided that the fair rent fixed may in proper cases be lower than but shall in no case exceed by more than 15 per cent, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax for the building has been fixed.

(3) If there is no property tax or house tax fixed for the building or if it is not based on a rental basis or if the building is situated in an area which is not a City, Municipality, Panchayat or in any other local authority, the fair rent shall be fixed after taking into consideration the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months preceding the letting.

xxx

The first question, to consider is whether the Bent Control Court has under-stood the proviso correctly, whether, it was right in assuming that it was the monthly rent on the basis of which tax was fixed at the time of letting that was material, as if the words "at the time of letting" appearing in sub-section (2) were to be r