JUDGMENT Misra J. 1. This is an application in revision in a suit u/s 5 (4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947), The house to which the suit related is situate on 3, Canning Street in the city of Lucknow. The plaintiff-applicant, Bassarmal, took part of the house on leave on June 27, 1948, at a monthly rent of Rs. 100 and executed a rent deed, Ex. A-26, on July 9, 1948. At the time of the lease, the defendant-opposite-party, Durga Prasad, was in personal occupation of the entire building. The portion let out to the plaintiff consisted of the upper story of the house comprising two large rooms, two kothris, two verandahs and a kitchen and one room and kothri on the ground floor. In addition he was given a portion of the compound. A sum of Rs. 1,200 in respect of a year's rent was taken by Durga Prasad in advance. 2. Bissarmal, plaintiff who is a refugee from Sind and carries on some business at Aishbagh in the city of Lucknow instituted a suit on January 17, 1950, alleging that the transaction was unfair and that the reasonable rent of the portion occupied by the plaintiff should not exceed Rs. 15 p. m. 3. The learned Mansif in whose court the suit was filed framed three issues :- 1. Was the transaction of tenancy between the parties unfair as alleged? 2. Were the portions in plaintiff's occupation constructed only recently, as alleged? If so to what effect? 3. What would be the fair and reasonable rent of' the portions in suit? 4. The only question which the learned Munsif decided was the one covered by the first issue aid since his conclusion was against the plaintiff he did not proceed to determine whether the portions let out to the plaintiff were or were not constructed recently nor did he give any finding regarding the fair and reasonable rent thereof, It is generally desirable in cases where the law does not give absolute finality to the decisionaaaaaaaaaa of the Court below, that all questions involved in the suit should be determined. Such a course would often render it unnecessary for the High Court to send back cases for disposal on the undecided issues. 5. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant that the learned Munsif approached the case from a wrong angle altogether. Such a course would often render it unnecessary for the High Court to send back cases for disposal on the undecided issues. 5. It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant that the learned Munsif approached the case from a wrong angle altogether. Section 5 (4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act enables a landlord or tenant to have the annual reasonable rate determined on satisfying the Court that the transaction 'was unfair'. What is an unfair transaction is not defined by the Act. The scope of inquiry under the section, according to the learned Munsif, was apparently the same as that in a case of undue influence u/s 16, Indian Contract Act and the standard for deciding such cases was laid down by him as follows : In order to make a transaction unfair the party claiming relief shall have to prove, besides other things, that his consent to the terms of the contract was taken by undue influence or fraud and that the consideration of the contract was un-lawful. In the absence of any such proof, the transaction will not be unfair merely. because the rate of rent agreed or the rate of interest charged was high. 6. The word 'fair' according to the New English Dictionary, Vol. IV in its application to conduct action or methods, means; Free from bias, fraud or injustice; equitable, legitimate. 7. The meaning given to the word in Webster's Dictionary is: Characterized by frankness, honestly, impartiality or candor, open, upright; free or based upon that which is free from suspicion or bias; equitable, just, affording no undue advantage. 8. Section 3(2)(d), Usurious Loans Act also uses the word 'fair' and enjoins that in considering whether a transaction falls under the clause, the Court must take into account all the circumstances materially affecting the relations of the parties at the time of the loan or tending to show that the transaction was unfair including the necessities or the supposed necessities of the debtor at the time of the loan so far as they were known or must be taken to have been known to the debtor. The tests referred to in Section 3 (2) (d) of that Act may offer some reasonable guidance for ascertaining the meaning which the Legislature desired to attach to the proviso under Cl. The tests referred to in Section 3 (2) (d) of that Act may offer some reasonable guidance for ascertaining the meaning which the Legislature desired to attach to the proviso under Cl. (4) of Section 5, Control of Rent and Eviction Act but whether this be so or not, the fundamental conception underlying the words unfair' in the aforesaid clause must be that the transaction has nothing under (sic) in it, that it is honest, just, equitable and upright and that the other party to the contract has not taken any undue advantage. 9. The preamble of the Act shows that the enactment was brought on the statute book because there was short ago of accommodation in the State and it was expedient to provide for the continuance during a limited period of the powers to control the letting and renting of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. Judged in that background it is evident that in the matter of letting or such accommodation as is referred to by the Act the Legislature, by prescribing that action should be taken if the transaction was unfair, meant that the parties must (sic) take advantage of each other and of the shortage of accommodation due to influx of population in towns. The unfairness referred to in Cl. (4) of Section 5 differs from the conception underlying the unconscionable bargains made with persons 'in dominating positions referred to in Section 16, Indian Contract Act, for here the law does not permit the avoidance of contracts but their enforcement after ascertainment of a fair and reasonable rent. The considerations, therefore, that prevailed with the learned Munsif ought not to have been brought into use by him for determining the first issue. 10. The circumstances disclosed by the evidence are: (1) That the plaintiff was in dire need of accommodation nearer his place of business. (2) That a part of the defendant's house was readily made available to the plaintiff and it suited his requirements better than the house in which he was then living. (3) That the accommodation in the part let out on the upper story and that the part kept by the defendant for his own use on the ground floor was almost the same except that one room and a kothri on the ground floor was also given into the occupation of the plaintiff. (3) That the accommodation in the part let out on the upper story and that the part kept by the defendant for his own use on the ground floor was almost the same except that one room and a kothri on the ground floor was also given into the occupation of the plaintiff. This leads one to hold that even if the defendant's case be true that the Municipal assessment of 1948 was made on the basis of a monthly rent of Rs. 43/- before the construction of the upper story, the rent of the accommodation which was given to the plaintiff should not be wholly disproportionate to the rent of the building and the compound in the lower story, (4) That a sum of Rs. 1200/- constituting the advance rent for a whole year was realized by the plaintiff from the defendant, and (5) That in the sarkhat which was taken from the plaintiff, he was made to agree that the Control of Rent and Eviction Act would not apply to the tenancy. 11. The cumulative view of all these circumstances should hive led the Court below to the conclusion that the contract of tenancy was neither just nor equitable and it was not free from the taint referred to in the proviso attached to Cl. (4) of Section 5 of the Act. The Court below should have, therefore, proceeded to determine the reasonable rent of the accommodation which the plaintiff occupied. A failure to do so amounts in my judgment, to irregular exercise of jurisdiction. 12. I allow the application, get aside the decision of the learned Munsif North Lucknow, and remand the case to his Court for being disposed of in accordance with law. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs of this revision from the defendant.