The court emphasized the need for evidence and circumstances to support fair rent determination and highlighted the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

1. The dispute about the fixation of fair rent for a building under the control and management of the petitioner and which has been taken on rent by the respondent, has given rise to this revision petition. The building is situated at an important locality within the municipal town of Kozhikode and it is taken on rent by the Fisheries Department of the State. The office of the Superintendent, Fisheries Technological Station at Kozhikode is housed in this building. The rent offered by the department is Rs. 70 per month. On the allegation that this rent is extremely low, the petitioner filed a petition R.C. No. 223/1952 before the Rent Controller at Kozhikode, praying for an order under S.4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act XXV of 1949) as amended by Act VIII of 1951. The stand taken by the petitioner was that Rs. 175 per month would be a fair rent for the building in question. After considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner and also making the other inquiries, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that Rs. 105 per month would be a fair rate of rent for the building and accordingly passed an order fixing the fair rent at that rate. The petitioner-land-lord took up the matter in appeal (C.M.A.18/1953) to the Subordinate Judge at Kozhikode who is also the appellate authority for matters arising under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The appellate authority varied the order of the Rent Controller by fixing Rs. 135 per month as the fair rent for the building. The respondent-tenant challenged this order by preferring civil revision petition No. 431/1953 before the District Judge of South Malabar. The District Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the Rent Controller. The land-lord has, therefore, filed this petition seeking a revision of the District Judge's order on the ground that the District Judge has acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the appellate authority.

2. The grounds on which the learned District Judge set aside the order of the appellate authority are that in enhancing the rent to Rs. 135 per month, the appellate authority was acting on surmises and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the appellate authority. In making such a criticism the learned District Judge has overlooked the fact that the evidence and the circumstances relied on by the appellate authority are the same on which the Rent Controller also acted in fixing the fair rent at Rs. 105 per month. Under S.4 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Rent Controller is authorised to conduct such inquiries as he thinks fit for the purpose of fixing the fair rent of a building on the application of the tenant or the land-lord. Even though a great latitude is allowed to him in this matter, it is obvious that he is not to act capriciously or arbitrarily. Sub-s. 2 of S.4 specifies the matters which have to be taken into account by the Controller in the matter of fixing the fair rent of a building and these are: (1) the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the 12 months prior to the 1st April 1940; (b) the rental value of the building as entered in the Municipal Tax Assessment Book of the Municipal Council or the Local Board, as the case may be, relating to the period specified in Cl. (a), and (c) the circumstances of the case including any amount paid by the tenant by way of premium or any other sum in addition to rent after the 1st of April 1940. These are only matters for the guidance of the Rent Controller and it cannot be said that all the particulars specified in Cls. (a), (b) and (c) should be made available to him before he proceeds to pass an order fixing in fair rent. If all such particulars are made available to him, he is un