Procedures laid down under the relevant section has to be followed.

These two Revisions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, viz., the Appellate Authority in C.M.A.No.66 of 1980 and C.M.A.No.65 of 1980 confirming the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, Vellore in R.C.O.P.Nos.87 of 1978 and 86 of 1978 respectively. The landlord is the petitioner herein in both the Revisions. He has filed the two R.C.O.Ps. for fixation of fair rent. According to the petitioner, the first respondent, viz., the Controller and Authorised Officer of Buildings, Vellore, has taken the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-and let out the ‘same to the second respondent in both the petitions. It is alleged that the cost of construction of the building comes to Rs.25,000/-, that the building was con-structed in the year 1956, that the market value of the sites comes to Rs.29,750/-and hence, a sum of Rs.300/- has to be fixed as fair rent. The said claim was resisted by the respondents and they contended inter alia that the age of the building is 35 years and the cost of the building is only Rs.10,000/-, that after depreciation, the total value of the building would come to Rs.18,264/- only and that the petition for fixation of fair rent is not sustainable.

2. The learned Rent Controller, ,on the basis of the report of the Commissioner appointed to measure the entire building with the help of the licenced surveyor and on consideration of Exhibits A.1 and A.2 and the evidence of P.W.2 the Advocate-Commissioner, arrived at a finding that the cost of construction totally comes to Rs.68,650/-, after depreciation for 20 years. He has fixed the cost of site on the basis of a sale deed, Ex.A-4 in favour of the Municipality, at Rs.7/- per sq.ft. As per his calculation, the fair rent for each building comes to Ra.450/- per mensem; but since the petitioner herein has claimed only Rs.300/- per mensem per building in his petitions, the same was fixed as fair rent. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord viz., the petitioner herein, has preferred the two C.M.As., and he was unsuccessful, as they were dismissed on the same ground. Hence, these two revisions.

3. It is seen from the orders passed by both the learned authorities below, that the fair rent for each of the building works out at Rs.450/- per mensem and there is a concurrent finding in respect of the quantum, which was arrived at according to the procedure contemplated under rules and on the cost of the building as well as the value of the site. The respondents have not challenged the said findings by way of either Appeal or Revision.

4. The only point that arises for considera-tion is, whether even though the fair rent works out to Rs.450/- per mensem for each building, ‘the petitioner’ is estopped’ from claiming more in view of the pleadings in the petitions filed for fixation of fair rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Raval & Co. v. K.C.Rama-chandran and others, (1974)1 S.C.C. 424: (1974)2 S.C.R. 629: A.I.R. 1974 S.C.818, rendered by five Judges of the Supreme Court. According to the majority judgment, it was held that:

‘The analysis of the Act shows that it has a Scheme of its own and it is intended to provide a complete code in respect of both contractual tenancies as well as what are popularly called statutory tenancies. The definition of the term ‘landlord’ as well as the term ‘tenant’ show that the Act applies to contractual tenancies as well as to case; of ‘Statutory tenants’ and their landlords. On some supposed general principles governing all Rent Acts it cannot be argued that such fixation can only be for the benefit of the tenants when the Act clearly lays down that both landlords and tenants can apply for fixation of fair rent. A close reading of the Act shows that the fair rent is fixed for the building and it is payable by whoever is the tenant whether a contractual tenant or statutory tenant. What is fixed is not the fair rent payable by the t