Appeal filed by tenant held not maintainable.

Both these revisions are against the same judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. C.R.P. No.3299 of 1991 is filed under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act, and the other Revision, namely, C.R.P. No.489 of 1992 is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The material facts may be summarised as follows: Revision petitioner is the landlord of the building. There was an earlier proceeding between the same parties for immediate demolition and reconstruction of the building which was then in existence. Even at the time when the present respondent was a tenant of the then building, he was occupying an area of 736 sq. ft. eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner was allowed, and the respondent herein filed a Rent Control Appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the order, and a revision taken to this Court also met with the same fate. Later, the respondent herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court wherein the matter was settled. As per the terms of compromise, a consent order was passed on 22. 1983 by the Supreme Court to the following effect:

(1) The respondent and other tenants will handover possession of the portions occupied by them within three months. (2) The petitioner shall, after demolition of the present structure, put up a new building on me same site within eighteen months from the date he is put in possession. (3) Identical are in the front portion of the first floor of the newly constructed building should be leased to the respondent i.e., 736 sq. ft. (4) The Rent Controller shall fix the rent for the premises notwithstanding the fact that in relation to a new building, he has no jurisdiction to fix the rent. Pursuant to the compromise, the petitioner demolished the old building and put up a new construction and the premises was named as Jewel Complex. Immediately after completion of construction, respondent informed the petitioner expressing their desire to occupy the portion earmarked for them in the new building. The petitioner offered the portion at Rs.6 per sq. ft. and requested the respondent to occupy it after executing a lease deed. The respondent herein offered to pay a paltry sum of Rs.1 (one rupee) per sq.ft. for the building. Since there was no meeting point regarding the rate of rent, but since they agreed before the Supreme Court to let out the building to the respondent, the respondent- Handloom Federation was allowed to occupy the building without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to get proper rent fixed in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court of India. In the application filed by the petitioner (landlord), it was further said that the building is situated in Raja Street, Coimbatore, which is a busy market place, and proper rent of the building has to be calculated at the rate of Rs.8 or Rs.9 per sq. ft. After narrating the importance of the locality, the landlord wanted the rent to be fixed at Rs.4,500 per mensem.

3. In this connection, it may be noted that the application was filed not under Sec.4 of the Rent Control Act, but the application was filed with the following cause title ‘Application for fixation of proper rent filed as per common order dated 22. 1983 as modified by the order dated 9. 1983 passed by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. Nos. 14761 of 1982 and 553 of 1983’.

.4. The extract which I made earlier in the compromise is dated 22. 1983. But it is seen that the petitioner herein wanted clarification of the Order passed on 22. 1983. As stated earlier as per Clause 5 of the compromise order, ‘The Rent Controller, Coimbatore, shall fix the rent of the premises notwithstanding the fact that in respect of new buildings he has no jurisdiction to fix the rent’. There was some dispute as to the interpretation of the word ‘rent’ The confusion came in view of the fact that being a new building, under the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction for fixation