ORDER : This revision petition arises out of proceedings for the fixation of rent under 'the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan, 1950.' The facts are that on 31-5-51 Gordhan Das presented an application under S.7(4) of the Act before the Rent Controller for the fixation of rent payable by his tenant Phool Chand alleging that the agreed rent was inadequate. On 27-7-51, the tenant put in his objections to the enhancement of the rent and also prayed that the rent be reduced as it was excessive. The tenant described his objections as a cross-suit for the fixation of the proper rent. Thereafter, the applicant landlord raised an objection that the tenant's cross-suit was not maintainable as he had failed to give to the landlord a notice under S.7(2) of the Act of his intention to commence proceedings before the Rent Controller for the fixation of the rent. The Rent Controller accepted the objection of the landlord and held that the tenant's claim for a reduction in the rent was not maintainable as the requisite notice of the claim had not been given to the landlord under S.7(2). Phool Chand then appealed to tile Court of the District Judge, Gwalior from the order of the Rent Controller. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the Rent Controller and directed him to entertain the tenant's claim as regards the reduction of the rent. 2. After hearing Mr. Diwan, the learned counsel for the applicant, I think there is no force in this revision petition. Mr. Diwan's contention is that the tenant's cross-suit is not maintainable because under S.7(2) of the Act, if a tenant desires that the rent should be reduced, he must move the Rent Controller for the fixation of the rent after giving a notice to the landlord. It is no doubt, true that if the landlord claims that the rent should be enhanced or the tenant claims that it should be reduced, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, has to move the Rent Controller for the fixation of rent after giving a notice in writing to the other party. But it is clear from the wording of cl.(2) of S.7 that the notice referred to therein is for the purpose of the commencement of the proceedings before the Rent Controller for the fixation of the rent. But it is clear from the wording of cl.(2) of S.7 that the notice referred to therein is for the purpose of the commencement of the proceedings before the Rent Controller for the fixation of the rent. Where the proceedings for the fixation of the rent have already been initiated by one party after giving notice to the other, there is no question of further notice being given by the opponent to the initiator of the proceedings, of his reply claiming a fixation of the rent after a reduction or enhancement, as the case may be, in the rent. It must be noticed that the object of the legislature in requiring a notice under sub-s.(2) of S.7 should be given to the other party is to afford the opponent an opportunity to reconsider his position with regard to the claim made and to settle the claim if so advised without recourse to the trouble and costs of proceedings before the Rent Controller. If therefore, where a landlord has already commenced proceedings for the fixation of the rent after alleging that the rent being paid to him is inadequate there is hardly any point in requiring the tenant to give a notice to the landlord, of his claim in reply that the rent should be one lower than what is being actually paid by him. 3. Likewise, it is meaningless to require a landlord to give a notice of his claim for enhancement of the rent where a tenant has already initiated proceedings for the fixation of the rent after alleging that the rent being paid by him is excessive. It must be noted that the proceedings before the Rent Controller under Ss.7 and 9 of the Act are primarily for the fixation of the 'proper rent' and not for the enhancement or reduction of the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. In determining what is a proper rent in proceedings initiated by the landlord, the Rent Controller is not debarred from reducing the rent being paid by the tenant. So also when the proceedings for the fixation of rent have been commenced by the tenant, the Rent Controller can come to the conclusion that the proper rent would be one higher than that actually being paid by the tenant. So also when the proceedings for the fixation of rent have been commenced by the tenant, the Rent Controller can come to the conclusion that the proper rent would be one higher than that actually being paid by the tenant. To accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the tenant's claim in reply for a reduction in the rent is not maintainable as he has failed to give a notice of the same to the landlord, would be to hold in effect that in a claim by the landlord for the fixation of the rent, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to reduce it and that similarly in a claim by the tenant the Rent Controller can only reduce the rent and not enhance it and that the proceedings for the enhancement or the reduction of it are independent proceedings and not integral parts of proceedings for the fixation of proper rent. These conclusions are not warranted by the language of section 7 of the Act 4. For these reasons and without expressing any opinion on the question whether the notice under S.7(2) is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, I would uphold the order of the District Judge, Gwalior and dismiss this revision petition with costs.