Judgment :- 1. The question for decision is whether an order fixing the fair rent of a holding under S.16 of the Malabar Tenancy Act should be quashed under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner, a tenant, made an application in the Rent Court, Telli-cherry, for fixing the fair rent of his holding comprising of three items. The rent of each item had been fixed in the lease deed. The dispute now relates to the fair rent of item No. 3, a garden land 67 cents in extent. The rent for this land was 4 annas per annum under the lease deed. The Rent Court fixed the fair rent at 348 coconuts and 667 arecanuts per annum. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry fixed the fair rent of this item at Rs. 132/- or 348 cocoanuts and 607 arecanuts, whichever was higher. 3. The main point urged by the petitioner is that item No. 3, being a garden land as defined by the Malabar Tenancy Act, fair rent should have been fixed under S.9 of the Act. Clause.5 and 6 of S.9 provide that the fair rent determined by the Rent Court under S.16 should not exceed twice the rent payable for the agricultural year 1949-50 and that if such fair rent exceeds the rent for the year 1949-50 the increase should be so spread over so that in no year the rent would be more than 11/4 times the rent payable for the previous year. According to the petitioner the enhanced rent should not therefore exceed more than a quarter of the original rent of 4 annas and in no case should it exceed 8 annas. The courts below fixed the fair rent under S.11 of the Act which relates to lands situated within the limits of any municipality or cantonment. The land in question admittedly is within the municipal limits of Tellicherry and fair rent was rightly fixed under S.11. Provision has been made in S.11 for fixing the fair rent of lands falling under two categories, namely, (1) those which are not built or planted upon or on which no crop is grown and (2) other lands, i. e , lands which are either built or planted upon or on which no crops are grown. Provision has been made in S.11 for fixing the fair rent of lands falling under two categories, namely, (1) those which are not built or planted upon or on which no crop is grown and (2) other lands, i. e , lands which are either built or planted upon or on which no crops are grown. The land in question falls under the latter category and fair rent had to be determined under S.11 clause (b) as was done by the Courts below. S.11 reads as follows: 11. [a] In the case of lands situated within the limits of any municipality or cantoment and not built or planted upon, or on which no crop is grown, the fair rent shall be the rent paid or agreed to be paid in respect of similar lands, of the same extent, in the neighbourhood. [b] In the case of other lands situated within the said limits, the fair rent shall be the fair rent determined under S.5 to 10, or the fair rent determined under sub-section [a] of this section, whichever is higher : xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (The proviso which is immaterial for the purpose of this petition is omitted). According to the petitioner the land being a planted area, the fair rent cannot and ought not to be fixed under S.11 (a) which provides only for fixing the fair rent of lands not built or planted upon. What S.11 (b) really provides is that in the case of lands which are planted upon, the fair rent fixed should not in any case be lower than that of vacant lands within the municipal area. This is what the Courts below have done. 4. Another point was raised in the petition that the fair rent fixed was not based on any evidence. It appears from the records that the basis adopted by the Rent Court as well as the Subordinate Judge was the fair rent fixed for the second item in the lease deed Learned counsel for the petitioner did not want us to decide this point as he apprehended that a decision on the merits might prejudice the decision of any later application under S.20 of the Act for revision of the fair rent, and we do not therefore express any opinion on the same. In the result, the original petition is dismissed. In the result, the original petition is dismissed. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent including counsel's fee of Rs. 100.