JUDGMENT S. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The appellant, the Mattancherry Municipal Council, sued the respondents for recovery of arrears of property tax in respect of their building, at Rs. 91.12 per half-year for the five half-years commencing from the second half-year of 1956-57. The defence was two-fold, first, that the fair rent of the building having been fixed by the Rent Control Court at Rs. 61-a. 1-ps. 8 per month, in computing the annual value of the building, not more than the fair rent could be taken into the computation, and second, that a revision petition filed by the respondents on the 17th February, 1958 for reducing the assessment has not yet been disposed of. The Munsiff gave a decree in terms of the plaint, and the Subordinate Judge in appeal dismissed the suit. 2. Section 75 (2) of the Cochin Municipal Act, XVIII of 1113, prescribes the standard according to which a property may be assessed by the Municipality. That section reads, "the annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less an allowance of 10 per cent for repairs ". 3.The landlord is precluded from receiving from his tenant, anything more than the fair rent as may be fixed by the Rent Control Court and it is even penal if he does so. If so, the question is whether for the purpose of computmg the annual value under section 75 (2) aforesaid, anything more than the fair rent can be taken into Mattancherry consideration. The precise question arose for decision in. The Corporation of Calcutta v. Sm. Padma Debi A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 151 under 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act (3 of 1923) before the Supreme Court. In that case too, the standard rent which is the same as fair rent, was fixed by the Rent Control Court. The precise question arose for decision in. The Corporation of Calcutta v. Sm. Padma Debi A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 151 under 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act (3 of 1923) before the Supreme Court. In that case too, the standard rent which is the same as fair rent, was fixed by the Rent Control Court. Section 127 (a) of that Act may be quoted: " The annual value of land, and the annual value of any building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let, shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten percent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent. " 4. The language of section 127 (a) is strikingly similar to that of section 75 (2) of the Cochin Municipal Act. The Supreme Court observed thus : "Acombined reading of the said provisions leaves no room for doubt that a contract for a rent at a rate higher than the standard rent is not only not enforceable but also that the landlord would be committing an offence if he collected a rent above the rate of the standard rent. One may legitimately say under those circumstances that a landlord cannot reasonably be expected to let a building for a rent higher than the standard rent. A law of the land with its penal consequences cannot be ignored in ascertaining the reasonable expectations of a landlord in the matter of rent. In this view, the law of the land must necessarily be taken, as one of the circumstances obtaining in the open market placing an upper limit on the rate of rent for which a building can reasonably be expected to let. It is said that section 127 (a) does not contemplate the actual rent received by a landlord but a hypothetical rent which he can reasonably be expected to receive if the building is let. So stated the proposition is unexceptionable. Hypothetical rent may be described as a rent which a landlord may reasonably be excepted to get in the open market. So stated the proposition is unexceptionable. Hypothetical rent may be described as a rent which a landlord may reasonably be excepted to get in the open market. But an open market cannot include a 'black market', a term euphemistically used to commercial transactions entered into between parties in defiance of law. In that situation, a statutory limitation of rent circumscribes the scope of the bargain in the market. In no circumstances the hypothetical rent can exceed that limit. " 5. In that case also, an argument was advanced under 9 (1) (b) of the Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, which corresponds section 7 of the Kerala Act, 1959, that the land -lord can get the standard rent raised by an amount equivalent to the increase in taxes, rates or cesses. In disposing of that argument, the Court said :” "This reasoning would land us in a vicious circle and would enable one to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Control Act." The case cited is sufficient authority for holding, that the appellant is not entitled to realise anything more than the fair rent as fixed by Ex. D-1 order. 6. The respondents filed a petition, Ex. D-2 on the 17th February, 1958, for a revision of the assessment. In the face of rule 11 of the Taxation and Finance Rules, Part I, it can apply only to the second half-year of 1957-58. That petition has not yet been disposed of. In the written statement, it was also averred, that from the year 1953, the respondents had complained to the appellant against the enhancement of property tax and none of these complaints had been disposed of. The respondents had called upon the appellant to produce the relevant records and the appellant applied for time for doing so. None except Ex. D-2 was produced. The appellant cannot realize property tax without disposing of the complaints. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances I do not order costs.