Order.- These petitions for prohibition challenge the vires of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1961, relating to fixation of fair rent for residential and non-residential buildings under section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioners are different tenants and some of the respondents are their respective landlords. The State of Madras has been impleaded as one of the respondents, as the validity of the Rules is questioned. The landlords filed before the Rent Controller at Madras or Coimbatore, as the case may be, who is the 1st respondent in each of the petitions, petitions for fixation of fair rent. In W. P. No. 220 of 1964 the petitioner is in occupation of 24, Halls Road, Egmore, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 375. He is running the Minerva Tutorial College and the Minerva Publishing House in the premises which are treated as non-residential for purposes of the Act. Petitioners before the 1st respondent, who are the landlords, prayed for fixing the fair rent of the premises at Rs. 2,584-40 per mensem which they purported to have arrived at on the basis of the Rules framed under section 4 of the Act. It is stated that the plinth area of the whole building is 9 grounds 1,807 sq. feet and the age of the building 50 years. They have classified the building in their petition for fixation of fair rent as Class II and Class III for the purpose of the Rules. By application of the Rules, they arrived at, as they claimed, the total cost of construction at Rs. 2,32,901 and after deducting depreciation of Rs. 91,955-11 gave the net value at Rs. 1,40,905-89. To this figure they added Rs. 1,46,250 as the market value of the site and Rs. 57,431-17 referable to the increase on account of amenities at 20 per cent. On that basis, the annual rent was calculated at Rs. 31,012-33 and monthly rent at Rs. 2,584-40. W.P. No. 321 of 1964 relates to premises No. 84, Krishnaswamy Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore, for which a monthly rent of Rs. 287-50 is paid. This is stated to be a residential building and to have been constructed in 1941. In the Fair Rent Petition the landlord claimed Rs. 1,200 per mensem as fair rent on the basis of the Rules. W.P. No. 321 of 1964 relates to premises No. 84, Krishnaswamy Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore, for which a monthly rent of Rs. 287-50 is paid. This is stated to be a residential building and to have been constructed in 1941. In the Fair Rent Petition the landlord claimed Rs. 1,200 per mensem as fair rent on the basis of the Rules. In W.P. No. 221 of 1964, which is concerned with the premises No. 2/157, Purasawalkam High Road, Madras, the landlord in the Fair Rent Petition claimed Rs. 2,575 as fair rent per month against Rs. 187-50 now paid as monthly rent. The tenant is a practising surgeon and is running a nursing home in the premises which must therefore be classified as a non-residential building. The tenants in the petitions before this Court pray for rules prohibiting the Rent Controllers, concerned from proceeding with the petitions for fixation of fair rent, their ground being that the Rules, framed by the State Government, in exercise of the powers vested in them by section 4 of the Act, are not in conformity with its intention and ambit and are, therefore, invalid. The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, repealed the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and re-enacted, amended and consolidated the law relating to the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Madras. Section 4 of the earlier Act provided for fixation of fair rent by the Controller on application by the tenant or landlord of a building and fixed the principles on which fair rent should be arrived at. The fair rent should be fixed having due regard, inter alias, to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to 1st April, 1940 and to the rental value as entered in the property tax assessment book of the Municipal Council or the Corporation of Madras, as the case may be, relating to the said period and by allowing an increase at a certain percentage over such rate of rent or rental value. The percentage of increase varied with two slabs of the quantum of such rate of rent or rental value and was, in the case of non-residential buildings, fixed at slightly higher figures. This basis of calculating fair rent has been entirely given up and a new mode of fixing it up is prescribed by section 4 of the new Act. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the Controller shall, on application by a tenant or a landlord of a building and after holding an enquiry, fix the fair rent for the building in accordance with the principles set out in subsections (2) and (3), as the case may be, and such other principles as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) is as follows:- “ (2) (a) The fair rent for any residential building shall be at six per cent. gross return per annum on the total cost of such building. (b) The total cost referred to in clause (a) shall consist of - (i) the cost of the construction as calculated according to such rates for such classes of residential buildings as may be prescribed less the depreciation at such rates as may be prescribed ; (ii) the market value of that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed; and shall include such allowances as may be made for considerations of locality in which the residential building is situated, features of architectural interest, accessibility to market, dispensary or hospital, nearness to the railway station or educational institution and such other amenities as may be prescribed: Provided that such allowances shall not exceed ten per cent. of the cost of construction as calculated in the manner specified in sub-clause (i).” Sub-section (3) refers to fixation of fair rent for non-residential buildings and runs practically on the same lines as sub-section (2) except for the fact that the fair rent for non-residential building shall be at nine per cent. gross return per annum on the total cost of such building. Under sub-section (2) a landlord in respect of a residential building is entitled to a gross annual return by way of fair rent at 6 per cent. on the total cost of such building. How the total cost is to be arrived at is mentioned in the sub-section. gross return per annum on the total cost of such building. Under sub-section (2) a landlord in respect of a residential building is entitled to a gross annual return by way of fair rent at 6 per cent. on the total cost of such building. How the total cost is to be arrived at is mentioned in the sub-section. The total cost shall comprise the cost of construction less the depreciation plus the market value of the portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed and shall include allowances for amenities subject to a maximum of 10 per cent. of the cost of the construction. The cost of construction has to be calculated according to the prescribed rates relevant to the prescribed classes of residential buildings and by deducting from it, the depreciation calculated at such rates as may be prescribed. The fixation of rates for, and of classes of, residential buildings as well as the rates of depreciation is thus left to the rule-making power. In exercise of that power, rules have been made of which rule 8 classifies residential buildings into four different classes depending upon the specifications and the materials used in the construction thereof as specified in Schedule I. Rule 9 fixes the rate for each class and floor at so many rupees per square foot of plinth area. Rule 10 sets out the various amenities for which allowances subject to a maximum may be given. Rules 11 to 13 relate to classification of non-residential buildings, calculation of the cost of the construction of such buildings and allowances to be made for the amenities specified. Rule 14 says that the depreciation of the buildings shall be calculated at the rates specified in Schedule II. For Class I of residential buildings, the cost of construction is prescribed at Rs. 16 per square foot of plinth area for the ground floor ; Rs. 13 for the first floor and Rs. 12 for the second floor; for Class II ground floor at Rs. 13, first floor at Rs. 10 and second floor at Rs. 9; for Class III, single storeyed at Rs. 10 and Class IV also single-storeyed at Rs. 5 per square foot of plinth area. 13 for the first floor and Rs. 12 for the second floor; for Class II ground floor at Rs. 13, first floor at Rs. 10 and second floor at Rs. 9; for Class III, single storeyed at Rs. 10 and Class IV also single-storeyed at Rs. 5 per square foot of plinth area. Rule 9 has two Explanations and from the first it appears that in the case of Class I and Class II buildings, for every additional floor higher up, the rate per square foot shall be one rupee less than the rate per square foot for the floor immediately below and an additional rate of Rs. 2 per square foot of the floor area shall be allowed for the portion where mosaic flooring with skirting is provided. This Explanation also requires that the cost of construction shall include the cost of installation of cup-boards, lofts, racks, sanitary fittings in bath-rooms, distempering or emulsion painting in drawing rooms, first-class electrical installations excluding tube-lights and fans. Schedule I shows that the four-fold classification of residential buildings is based on the specifications for, and type and quality of, materials used in ‘the construction. For instance for Class I buildings the foundations should be three to five feet below ground level with 1 foot 6 inches thick concrete and bricks footings above of sufficient thickness; brickwork in cement mortar of suitable proportion. For basement, the specification is brickwork in cement mortars and filling or earth filling in layers of 6 inches thick and well watered and rammed, usually about 2 feet 6 inches to 3 feet above ground level. Doors and windows for Class I buildings should be of first class teakwood frames and shutters with first class brass or aluminium or chromium fixtures with wind ties with ornamental grills or iron bars. Doors and windows for Class I buildings should be of first class teakwood frames and shutters with first class brass or aluminium or chromium fixtures with wind ties with ornamental grills or iron bars. Lintels and roofing to be of R.C.C. lintels and R.C.C. slab either one way or two-way reinforced with suitable bearings or Madras terraced roofing with first class teakwood joists ; flooring with 4 inches thick base of lime or cement concrete of certain proportions; weather proofing according to “Madras Detailed Standard Specifications” with brick concrete and two courses of flat tiles, plastering with cement mortar of suitable proportions, interior and exterior facets; finish with colour wash, whitewash and distemper; painting doors and windows and woodwork with 3 coats of first-class paint or varnish and sanitation with minimum water-closets, basins, etc., in bath. Different specifications and qualities of materials are specified for buildings specified for each of the other three classes of buildings. Class II buildings contemplated was of lime mortar or cement mortar for foundation and basement; and best seasoned country wood frames and shutters with ordinary tower bolts; eye-hooks and bolts with iron bars. For Class III buildings country bricks should be used with clay or cement mortar and for plastering, cement mortar or lime mortar; country wood is used for doors and windows in buildings of Classes III and IV. Schedule II prescribes the standard rate of depreciation and for this purpose classifies buildings into four types and for each type a specific rate of depreciation at a certain percentage per annum is fixed. The first type is a building built in lime mortar in which teak has been used throughout. The rate of depreciation per annum allowed for this type is 1 per cent. 1½ per cent. is allowed for the second type of building built partly of brick in lime mortar and partly of brick in mud and in which teak has been used. Two per cent. is allowed for the buildings built in brick in mud and in which country wood has been used ; 4 per cent. for the fourth type of buildings which are inferior to the third type with brick in mud unplastered walls and mud floors and in which cheap country wood has been used. Two per cent. is allowed for the buildings built in brick in mud and in which country wood has been used ; 4 per cent. for the fourth type of buildings which are inferior to the third type with brick in mud unplastered walls and mud floors and in which cheap country wood has been used. The depreciation in accordance with the note to the Schedule shall be calculated for each year on the net value arrived at after deducting the amount of depreciation for the previous year and the amount of depreciation shall in no case be less than 10 per cent. of the estimated present cost of building. The Schedule explains that the actual depreciation of a building aged “ m ” years is calculated by using the formula: where A= present capital cost of the building; R = rate of depreciation per annum ; n = age of the building (i.e. the number of year) and P=the final depreciated value of the building. The amount of depreciation will be equal to 'A' — 'P' subject to a minimum of 10 per cent. of ‘A’. Mr. M. K. Nambiar for one of the petitioners contends that the expression “ cost of building” or “ cost of construction” in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 4 means the original cost of construction and the intention is to deduct depreciation at the prescribed rate from such original cost and this meaning is made clear by the fact that sub-section (2) itself takes the market value of the portion of the site on which the building is constructed in contra-distinction with the cost of construction. He says that the cost of construction is not the same as the market value of the land. Further, according to him, when the section says “ less the depreciation at such rates as may be prescribed,” fixation of rates of depreciation has to be in relation to the classification of the residential buildings for fixing rates in the calculation of the cost of construction. Further, according to him, when the section says “ less the depreciation at such rates as may be prescribed,” fixation of rates of depreciation has to be in relation to the classification of the residential buildings for fixing rates in the calculation of the cost of construction. But the Rules framed under section 4 (2) provide for calculation of the cost of the construction not on the basis of the original cost of construction in the sense of the original expenditure incurred for constructing the building and deducting subsequent depreciation therefrom, but on the basis of certain artificial rates at so much per square foot of plinth area for each class of buildings apparently obtaining at the time when the Act came into force, namely 30th September, 1960, and deducting depreciation from the current year backwards. For purposes of fixing the rates of depreciation, the classification of the types of buildings is not also related to the classification of buildings for the purpose of fixing rates for calculating the cost of construction. Mr. Nambiar, therefore, argues that the Rules framed are not in conformity with the provisions of section 4 (2) and do not carry out their purpose and are ultra vires section 4 (2). On the other hand, the contention of Mr. V. K. Thiruvenkatachari for the landlords-respondents is this. The total cost in section 4 (2) is a term of art and contains three components: (1) cost of construction, (2) market value of the portion of the site and (3) allowances for amenities subject to the prescribed maximum. The meaning of the total cost in the section, understood in the light of its components, does not mean either the original cost of the building or its present market value. He would say, therefore, that the Rules are entirely in conformity with section 4 (2). It may be granted that “ cost” in the context of “ cost of construction” may normally mean the original amount expended for construction of a building and is not the same thing as market value. Black’s Law Dictionary defines cost as the amount originally expended in performing a particular act or operation or for production or construction, as of a building, and value as saleable value, actual value, market value, fair value, reasonable value. But is the word “ cost” used in section 4 (2) in that sense ? Black’s Law Dictionary defines cost as the amount originally expended in performing a particular act or operation or for production or construction, as of a building, and value as saleable value, actual value, market value, fair value, reasonable value. But is the word “ cost” used in section 4 (2) in that sense ? If clause (a) of sub-section (2) had stood by itself, total cost may perhaps have reference to the expenditure as a whole originally incurred in constructing the building. But the sub-section indicates how the total cost should be calculated. The total cost combines both the cost of construction and the market value of the portion of the site on which the building is constructed and also includes the allowances for amenities. The cost of construction is to be calculated according to the rates prescribed for each of the classes of buildings residential or non-residential. If by the cost of construction what is meant is the original expenditure incurred for the construction, it cannot be calculated according to the rates to be prescribed with reference to the prescribed classes of buildings. That clearly shows that Mr. Nambiar’s contention that cost in section 4 (2) means’ the original cost of construction, cannot be accepted. The phrase “ total cost” in section 4 (2) (a) includes the market value of the land as contemplated by clause (6) and this again shows that by total cost is not meant the original cost of the building. Inclusion of allowances in the original cost of buildings is also a further indication against Mr. Nambiar’s contention. In my view, the statutory sense in which the word “ cost” or the phrase “ total cost” is used in sub-section (2) (a) is not the original cost or the original expenditure incurred for the construction of the building. “ Total cost” in section 4 (2) is a composite concept consisting of the three components mentioned and out of which the cost of construction for the purpose of arriving at the total cost is to be calculated according to the rates prescribed for each class of building prescribed and not the initial expenditure incurred in the construction. “ Total cost” in section 4 (2) is a composite concept consisting of the three components mentioned and out of which the cost of construction for the purpose of arriving at the total cost is to be calculated according to the rates prescribed for each class of building prescribed and not the initial expenditure incurred in the construction. Normally, the notion of depreciation is a subsequent fall in value or reduction of worth due to deterioration arising from age, use and other causes and it is deducted from the last value of the building as reduced by previous depreciation. But the depreciation calculated at the prescribed rates is under section 4 (2) (b) to be deducted from the cost of the construction as calculated according to the rates prescribed. When the cost of construction is arrived at on such basis, the depreciation at the prescribed rate is to be deducted therefrom backwards. This mode of deduction of depreciation is no doubt a reverse process. But there seems to be nothing strange in such a manner of arriving at the cost of construction which Lord Macmillan, accepted in Hari Chand v. Secretary of State1which is generally known as the contractors’ method. That no doubt was a case of land acquisition concerned with the market value of the building. The land belonged to Government and certain individuals to whom the Government had granted the land had erected buildings on it. When the buildings were sought to be acquired the question at issue between the parties was as to the mode of valuation of the buildings The Judicial Committee held at page 726: “ The subject to be valued being a building apart from the site, the principle of fixing value by ascertaining the cost of reproducing the building at the present time and then allowing for depreciation in consideration of the age of the building and for the cost of such repair as might be required apart from depreciation is quite a well-known and recognised method of valuing buildings for the purpose of compensation. That method was pursued here...................................... That method was pursued here...................................... The buildings accordingly in their Lordships’ view have been valued for the purpose of compensation on a perfectly admissible and perfectly legitimate principle, and that being so, there would appear to be no valid objection on this score to the awards that were made.” Ethirajulu Naidu v. Ranganathan Chetty1, is not a case of land acquisition but a case of lease which contained a stipulation that the lessee must be paid the value of the building put up by him according to the market rate when the landlord resumed possession. In valuing the building, regard was had to the cost of reproducing the building from which depreciation was deducted with the cost of repairs. A Division Bench of this Court applied the principle of Hari Chand v. Secretary of State2and approved the method of valuation. The principle of such mode of valuation was again recognised and applied by the Privy Council in Secretary of State v. Sri Marain Khanna3 . The Rules here under attack and relating to fixation of the cost of construction, as it seems to me, follow the pattern of the contractor’s mode of valuation but with this qualification that the Rules, instead of proceeding upon the basis of the present cost of reproduction of a building similar to the one for which fair rent is to be fixed, direct that the cost of construction should be computed at the rates prescribed with reference to each prescribed class of buildings and the rates prescribed by the Rules apparently were those obtaining when the Act come into force on 30th September, 1960. I hold, therefore, that the total cost contemplated by section 4 (2) is not on the basis of the original cost of construction nor on the present market value of the building but on the rates prescribed for each prescribed class of buildings. On that view, the Rules for fixation of the cost of construction are in conformity with section 4 (2) of the Act and are valid and the contention of the petitioners to the contrary must fail. The standard rates of depreciation are no doubt fixed in Schedule II at so much per cent per annum in respect of each of the four types of buildings described in the Schedule. The standard rates of depreciation are no doubt fixed in Schedule II at so much per cent per annum in respect of each of the four types of buildings described in the Schedule. Under section 4 (2) (b) (i), as I understand it, the rates of depreciation prescribed should be related to the classification of buildings prescribed for calculating the cost of construction. The argument for the petitioners is that the four-fold types of buildings in Schedule II are not related to the classification of buildings in Schedule I. Though the description of each type of building in Schedule II is brief, I am unable to hold that the classification in Schedule II is not related to the classification in Schedule I. The petitions are dismissed but with no costs. P.R.N. -------- Petitions dismissed.