A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

1. The Rent Control Revisions 420, 421 and 422 of 2012 are filed at the instance of the landlord. R.C.R. No. 118 of 2013 is filed by the tenant, who is the respondent in R.C.R. No. 420 of 2012. These matters are related to fair rent fixation of the buildings in occupation of the tenants. The buildings form part of a larger building situated in Ernakulam Town. Building is lying facing M.G. road as well as hospital road.

2. The common question in all these Rent Control Revisions filed by the landlord is with respect to the date from which fair rent shall be fixed and also regarding the periodical enhancement. In R.C.R. Nos. 420 and 422 of 2012, the landlord also challenges fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. The tenant filed R.C.R. No. 118 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by rate of fixation of fair rent.

3. Before entering into the subject matter of rate of fair rent fixed in R.C.R. No. 118 of 2013, the common questions that arise in all other Rent Control Revisions shall be considered together.

4. The Rent Control Court fixed fair rent from the date of application with enhanced rate of rent of 10% in every two years. The Appellate Authority restricted fixation of fair rent from date of order passed by the Rent Controller and also vacated 10% enhancement ordered by Rent Controller. In these proceedings Rent Control Court relied on the lease deeds executed in favour of the landlord by other tenants, who were inducted in possession of the upstair portion of the building in the year 2007-2009. The above documents would indicate that the rent payable is at Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. This Court in George vs. T.K. Saidu Muhammed, 2013 (2) KHC 326 held that fixation of fair rent is to be ordered by the Rent Control Court from the date of application or petition. We are of the view that rights and liabilities to the parties to the lis have to be determined with reference to the date of filing of the petition. However, in the matter relating to the fair rent fixation there can be a departure from such rule on finding that reliance placed by the Landlord to fix the fair rent is based on a material that has arisen subsequent to the filing of petition. The fair rent is fixed based on the prevailing rate of rent in the locality for the similar building. The components of the fair rent depend upon the market criteria related to fixation of fair rent. These components are liable for changes and fluctuations. The court has to advert to the market criteria that might have become prevalent in the locality and the date of commencement of such criteria by marshalling the factors that require to establish fair rent fixation. If those conditions exist as on the date of application for fixation of fair rent, necessarily, the court has to fix the fair rent as on the date of application. In this case, documents produced by the landlord clearly indicate that the rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. was prevailing before the application for fair rent. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the fair rent that should have been fixed, is from the date of application. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Rent Control Court and vacate the order passed by the Appellate Authority, restricting fair rent from the date of order.

5. Next common question is whether the Rent Control Court is justified in granting periodical enhancement at the rate of 10% in every two years. In Sreekumaran Nair vs. Ponnuswami Chettiyar, 2010 (3) KLT 444, this Court held as follows:-

"The question that survives for consideration is whether the decision of the statutory authorities to allow 10% increase per year can be approved. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority noticed several relevant aspects such as the value of money being on decline, corresponding increase in the value of land, inflationary trends in the economy and also the regular growth of the city as a whole etc. These reasons, we also feel, are good reasons which can just