Order.- Though the application for fixation of fair rent was disposed of on the facts and this Court cannot interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Judge regarding the quantum of fair rent, the learned Government Pleader has raised several interesting questions of law turning on the interpretation of section 3 (5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949. His contention, if I understood him right, was that in the case of buildings taken over by the State under section 3 of the Act, there cannot be at any time any application for the fixation of fair rent. Section 3 (5) inter alia says that if the building is required for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (3) the landlord shall deliver possession of the building to the authorised officer and the State Government shall be deemed to be tenant of the landlord from the date on which the authorised officer received notice under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). In such a case, the terms of the tenancy shall be such as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. In default of an agreement, the terms may be determined by the City Civil Court in the City of Madras and elsewhere by the Subordinate Judge’s Court and where there is no Subordinate Judge’s Court, by the District Court. To this sub-section there are three provisos of which the first is the material one. It runs thus: “ Provided that the rent payable shall be the fair rent, if any, fixed for the building under the provisions of this Act ; and if no fair rent has been so fixed, such fair rent as may be determined by the Court aforesaid in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” The learned Government Pleader’s contention was that this proviso has no application when the rent is agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, that is, the State Government. This contention is evidently based upon the assumption that rent is one of the terms of the tenancy and the main sub-section declares that the terms of the tenancy would be such as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the State Government. This contention is evidently based upon the assumption that rent is one of the terms of the tenancy and the main sub-section declares that the terms of the tenancy would be such as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the State Government. According to him, once the rent has been agreed upon, it would not be open to the landlord to have recourse to an application for fixing of fair rent I am unable to agree with this contention. Assuming that ordinarily the rate of ren is one of the terms of the tenancy, the proviso specifically deals with that term and as the proviso has to be read in conjunction with the main sub-section, the result is that the proviso takes out the rent from the operation of the main sub-section. To give an instance, suppose the State Government in ignorance of a prior final order of the Controller fixing the fair rent for a building agrees with the landlord to pay rent at a higher rate, the logical result of the learned Government Pleader’s argument will be that the State Government would be precluded from having resort to the Controller to get the fair rent fixed. The Government would be compelled to go on paying at the higher rate agreed upon, though it may be an unfair rent. I am clearly of opinion that this is not a correct interpretation of section 3 (5) read with the first proviso. The position is very simple. If fair rent has been fixed for the building concerned, under the provisions of the Act, then that is the only rent which is payable even when the State Government is the tenant. If no fair rent has been fixed but the landlord and the Government are agreed upon a particular rate of rent and the landlord continues to receive rent at that rate, then per se there is nothing invalid. But it will be always open to the landlord or the tenant to file an application for the fixation of fair rent if it is felt that the rent being paid is not a fair rent. But it will be always open to the landlord or the tenant to file an application for the fixation of fair rent if it is felt that the rent being paid is not a fair rent. Only in the case of buildings taken over by the State Government it is not the Controller who fixes the fair rent but the City Civil Court in the City of Madras and the Subordinate Judge’s Court elsewhere, and where there is no such Court, the District Court. There is, however, one lacuna in the Act, that is there is no provision for an appeal against an order of the City Civil Court or the Subordinate Judge’s Court or the District Court fixing fair rent. It is doubtful if any of these Courts would fall within the definition of Controller. In any event this may be clarified by Government when any amendments are undertaken at a subsequent date. I find no ground on which I can interfere with the order of the learned Judge in this case. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. R.M. ------------- Petition dismissed.