Judgment :- 1. The first respondent filed an application under S.16 of Act 4 of 1961 for fixation of the fair rent of the holding in question. That application was disposed of by the Land Tribunal, the 2nd respondent, under S.132(4) (ii) (a). S.132(4)(ii) (a) reads as follows: "Notwithstanding the repeal of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), (a) all applications for determination of fair rent filed or purported to have been filed under the said Act. in which no order determining the fair rent had been passed by the Land Tribunal, shall be deemed to have been filed under this Act and shall be disposed of according to the provisions of this Act." 2. The Land Tribunal has passed an order fixing the fair rent payable, "commencing from the agricultural year 1961 in which the petition was filed." 3. This order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Land Tribunal can fix the fair rent payable only from the date of the commencement of Act 1 of 1964. It was contended by Mr. C. K. Viswanatha Iyer, for the petitioner, that the application for fixation of fair rent must be deemed to have been filed under the provisions of Act 1 of 1964, and therefore the Land Tribunal could have fixed the fair rent as payable only from the date of the commencement of Act 1 of 1964, as that is the effect of the legislative fiction. I cannot accede to this submission. I think the effect of the legislative fiction is that the provisions of Act 1 of 1964 relating to fixation of fair rent must be considered to have been in force in respect of those petitions for fixation of fair rent which have been filed but not disposed of under Act 4 of 1961, when those petitions were filed. It is clear from S.132 (4)(d) that if fair rent has been fixed under the provisions of Act 4 of 1961 that would be final for the purpose of the payment of fair rent under Act 1 of 1964. It is clear from S.132 (4)(d) that if fair rent has been fixed under the provisions of Act 4 of 1961 that would be final for the purpose of the payment of fair rent under Act 1 of 1964. S. 132(4) (d) of Act 1 of 1964 runs: "In cases where orders determining fair rent have been passed or purported to have been passed under the said Act and such orders had become final, such orders shall be deemed to have passed under this Act for purpose of payment of fair rent". If fair rent had been fixed when Act 4 of 1961 was supposed to have been in operation and that is final for the purpose of payment of fair rent under Act I of 1964 and if in such a case a tenant was entitled to have the fair rent fixed from the date of petition for fixation of fair rent, I see no reason why the legislature should make a distinction in the case of a tenant whose application has not been disposed of under that Act for no fault of his. S.132 (4) (ii) (a) says that such an application shall be deemed to have been filed under the present Act, the legal effect of which is that the relevant provisions of the present. Act should be deemed to have been in force at the. time the application was filed by virtue of the legislative fiction and the application should be disposed of by fixing the fair rent as payable from the date of the application. I think the order passed by the Land Tribunal directing payment of the fair rent from the date of the petition is correct, and this petition has to be dismissed, and I do so. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.