Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. Fixation of fair rent on an application for the same by the landlord by invoking Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short `the Act’) has led to the respective revision petitions filed by the tenant as well as by the landlord. R.C.R.No.182/2012 is filed by the landlord and R.C.R.No.354/2012 is filed by the tenant.

2. During arguments, the issue boiled down to one point, viz, the date from which the fixation of fair rent can be made applicable by the Rent Control Court.

3. The above arguments has come to light in the revision petition filed by the landlord, since the grant of benefit of fixation from the date of filing of the petition, viz. 15.12.2004 has been modified by the Appellate Authority, to be effective from 6.11.2010, i.e. the date of the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The question is whether the same is a permissive mode.

4. In the revision petition filed by the tenant, various grounds have been stated including the challenge against the amount fixed.

5. The tenancy started in the year 1989, exactly on 3.2.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- for the building bearing door No.15/543 of Vadakkancherry Panchayat having an area of 250 sq.ft. The landlord claimed fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per month operative from the date of filling of the Rent Control Petition, viz. 15.12.2004. The amount has been fixed by the Rent Control Court at Rs.4,000/- after an analysis of the evidence adduced in the matter and after assessing the relevant criteria including the importance of the locality and other relevant factors. The same is reduced to Rs.3,750/- by the Appellate Authority.

6. We heard Shri S.P. Chaly, learnd counsel appearing for the landlord in both the cases and Shri G. Sreekumar(Chelur) appearing for the tenant in both the cases.

7. Learned counsel for the landlord, Shri S.P. Chaly submitted that the effective date of implementation of an order fixing fair rent should be the date of filing of the petition, herein, it should be from 15.12.2004 as decided by the Rent Control Court. It is submitted that the date of passing of an order being an uncertain one, the landlord cannot suffer merely because of the time lag between the date of filing and the date of order. He relied upon the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Kunhammed Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT 366) under the Act of 1959 and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Premier Rubber Co. v. K.S.S.I. Corporation (1980 KLT 504) as well as a decision of the Apex Court in Miran Devi v. Birbal Dass (AIR 1977 SC 2191) which was followed in Premier Rubber Co.’s case (supra).

8. Learned counsel for the tenant, Shri G. Sreekumar (Chelur) submitted that in an application for fixation of fair rent, a pre existing liability is not the one that is being considered by the Rent Control Court. Therefore only after fixing fair rent alone the liability can be fastened. Hence, if a date prior to the date of passing of the order by the Rent Control Court is taken, that means the order is being implemented retrospectively. It is submitted that unlike a suit for money where a pre existing liability is being sought to be enforced, the position is different herein. Our attention was invited to Sections 7 and 30 of the Act in this context. It is submitted that under Section 7, where the amount of the taxes and cesses payable by the landlord in respect of any building to a local authority has increased after fixation of the fair rent, such increase shall be recoverable by the landlord from the tenant and going by the proviso, the limit fixed for recovery from tenant is 5% of the original fair rent. It is submitted that such taxes or cesses cannot be imposed retrospectively and recovered from the tenant.

9. Section 30 provides for fixation of fair rent suo motu by the court. Sub-sections (1)and

(2) are relevant herein. The same are extracted below:

“30. Fixation of fair rent suo motu