ORDER Sir Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari with the object of quashing an order passed by the Collector of Madras under Clause 7-A of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941. It is clear that the Petitioner has misread the effect of that clause. 2. On 16th August 1942 the Petitioner became a tenant of the first Respondent in respect of a house known as No. 46, Sullivans Garden Road, Mylapore, Madras, on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. On 1st August 1943 the Petitioner agreed to the rent being increased to Rs. 35 a month and on 1st April 1944 he agreed to an increase to Rs. 40 a month. On 24th July 1944 the first Respondent wrote to the Petitioner giving notice that he required a rent of Rs. 60 a month. The Petitioner refused to agree to this and contended that he was entitled to remain in possession of the house at a rent of Rs. 30 per month, the rent which he was paying when the Madras House Rent Control Order was applied to the City of Madras. On this basis he claimed to be entitled to recover from his landlord Rs. 10 a mouth in respect of April, May and June 1944 and suggested that the Rs. 30 should be credited to the rent due in respect of the month of July. 3. In these circumstances the first Respondent applied to the Controller for an order of eviction of the Petitioner on the ground that he was not willing to pay the fair rent for the premises. There had been no application for the fixing of the fair rent, and consequently it was necessary for the Controller to decide what the fair rent was. He found that the municipal valuation for the year "1939-40 and preceding years had been based on a monthly rental of Rs. 60 but that owing to deterioration in the premises the valuation was reduced in respect of the year 1943-44. It was then based on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. The Controller considered that the fair rent would be Rs. 50 a month and directed the Petitioner to pay rent at this rate from 1st October 1944, failing which he was to be evicted from the premises. It was then based on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. The Controller considered that the fair rent would be Rs. 50 a month and directed the Petitioner to pay rent at this rate from 1st October 1944, failing which he was to be evicted from the premises. Both the parties appealed to the Collector who fixed the fair rent at Rs. 60 a month. It is that order which the Petitioner challenges in these proceedings. 4. For the Petitioner it is said that Clause 7-A must be read in conjunction with clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 which relate to the fixing of the fair rent at the instance of the tenant, that the fair rent cannot be fixed at the instance of the landlord and that a tenant is entitled to remain in possession of a house at the rent which he was paying when the Control Order came into-force. Clause 7-A was inserted in the Order on 4th July 1944 and it is obvious that Sub-clause 2 was inserted for the benefit of the landlord. So far as it is relevant to the matter before us the clause reads as follows: (1) A tenant in possession of a house shall not be evicted there from, whether in execution of a decree or other-wise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy except in accordance with the provisions of this clause. (2) A landlord wishing to evict a tenant in possession shall apply to the Controller far a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied. (2) A landlord wishing to evict a tenant in possession shall apply to the Controller far a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied. (i) that the tenant has not paid and is not ready and willing to pay the rent due in respect of the period before such application or (ii) that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay the fair rent of the house for such period thereafter as he may continue to be in possession or (iii) that the tenant has, without the consent of the landlord, sub-let the entire house or used it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased or (iv) that the landlord was at no time during the twelve months immediately preceding the date of his application residing within the limits of the city town or village in which the house in question is situated that it is essential in the public interest that he should take up residence in such city, town or village and that he is unable to secure other suitable accommodation, the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application. 5. Clause 7-A stands alone. If, as is suggested, it must be read in conjunction with clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6, it would have no meaning. Under Clause 7-A a landlord cannot have the fair rent fixed with retrospective effect but he can have it fixed and if the tenant is not willing to pay the fair rent thereafter the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. In this case the fair rent was fixed in accordance with law by the Collector and his order must stand. The application is dismissed with costs.