Judgment.- This petition arises from the order made in an application under section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petitioner was the landlord. He applied for the fixation of a fair rent. The House Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 105 per month. In appeal the Court of Small Causes confirmed this order. In this revision the order of the lower appellate Court is attacked as incorrect and that the fair rent fixed is not adequate having regard to the circumstances of the case. Since the filing of this revision petition the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has been replaced by Madras Act XVIII of 1960 amplifying, generally speaking, the several provisions of the Act. In so far as the fixation of fair rent is concerned, new principles have been laid down in this later Act on the basis of which such fair rent has to be determined. Learned counsel for the petitioner observes that in the light of section 35 of the Act it would be proper for this Court to set aside the orders of the Courts below and remand the fair rent application for a fresh determination of the question, particularly in view of the enlarged content of section 4 of the Act as it now stands. Examining the scheme of section 35, it is seen that under sub-section (2) (a) proceedings taken shall be deemed to be taken under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. Under sub-section (2) (b) any application made under the old Act shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. Under sub-section (2) (a) decisions made are also deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. Relying upon these provisions the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in disposing of this revision petition, it would be open to this Court to examine the question in the light of the relevant provisions of the new Act, particularly section 4. It seems to me that such a view cannot be sustained. Quite obviously where a new Act replaces an old Act, all pending proceedings suffered to the extent that they might have been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. It seems to me that such a view cannot be sustained. Quite obviously where a new Act replaces an old Act, all pending proceedings suffered to the extent that they might have been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. It is not in every case that all such proceedings when they came up before the higher Courts are liable to be set aside or remanded for fresh disposal in the light of the provisions of the new Act. In particular with regard to section 4 of the Act, both the old and new, which deals with the fixation of fair rent, the repeal section 35 contains a special provision. Under section 35, sub-section (3) the tenant or the landlord has been given the right to move the Rent Controller, afresh for a fixation of the fair rent of the building in accordance with the provisions of section 4 as amended, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 35 or in section 5 of the Act. That is to say, the mere fact that a fair rent has been fixed for a building and such decision is in terms of section 35, sub-section (2), deemed to be a decision under the new Act does not prevent either party to move the Controller once again for fixing the fair rent in accordance with the principles laid down in section 4 of the new Act. Clearly therefore such a right having been conferred upon the parties, it would not be proper for this Court to set aside the orders of the Courts below and remand the petition for refixation of the fair rent in accordance with the provisions under new section 4. To hold otherwise would also lead to practical difficulties. On the fixation of a fair rent, the right to recover rent at the rate fixed would enure as from the date of the application or at least from the date of the order. If the original petition itself is to be disposed of in the light of section 4 as amended by the new Act, it would mean that the petitioner would have the benefit of the new provision even from a date prior to the enactment; that is, the provision would be given a retrospective operation which the Legislature did not intend to confer. In the result the petition is dismissed. In the result the petition is dismissed. The right of the petitioner to all the remedies under the new provision as it exists will, in the light of sub-section (3) to section 35, remain unaffected. There will be no order as of costs. P.R.N. ------------- Petition dismissed.