Judgment :- 1. In this revision on behalf of the tenant-petitioner, Mr. T. M. Mhaalinga Iyer, learned counsel, challenges the orders of the two subordinate courts fixing fair-rent, making a different approach, for the properties in question. 2. There is no controversy that the petitioner has taken, under a common lease, the three items concerned; and according to the petitioner the contract rent is a sum of Rs. 200/-per month. 3. The petitioner filed an application under S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 (Act ZVI of 1959) as amended, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, for fixation of fair-rent for the building. It was the claim of the petitioner that the buildings were originally given municipal numbers, as Nos. 144,145 and 146, by the Alwaye Municipality; and later on the items after being renumbered as 220, 202 and 203 respectively now bear the municipal numbers 229, 230 and 232. 4. The petitioner no doubt wanted the fair rent to be fixed at Rs. 53/-per month on the basis that the municipal assessment for these properties at the time of letting in 1124 was Rs. 200/-,146/-and 100/-respectively. No doubt he has made certain other claims regarding adjustment to be made, of what according to him, are excess payments stated to have been made. 5. There is also no controversy, that the present respondent in the revision, has acquired title to the properties concerned and that being a company, it contested the claim of the petitioner on various grounds. They have referred to the fact that an application for eviction had already been filed and that a suit for recovery of arrears had also been instituted in the District Court. More than all these, so far as the claim of the petitioner was concerned, the respondent urged that what was originally a shed in item 1 was reconstructed in 1956-57; and the monthly rent for all the properties was fixed at Rs. 250/- with an arrangement entered into to the effect that a sum of R.50/-is to be adjusted, from and out of the rent, towards the amount stated to have been borrowed by the original first respondent in the R. C. P. 4/62, from the revision petitioner. 6. 250/- with an arrangement entered into to the effect that a sum of R.50/-is to be adjusted, from and out of the rent, towards the amount stated to have been borrowed by the original first respondent in the R. C. P. 4/62, from the revision petitioner. 6. After referring to the original municipal door numbers of these buildings and the re-numbering of the buildings later on, the respondent accepted that the municipal assessment, as it now stands for the three buildings is Rs. 315/-,360/- and 540 respectively. But they also urged that the shed in item 1, has been reconstructed at an expense of about Rs. 600/-and therefore the municipal assessment for item 1, which no doubt as found in the municipal registers as Rs. 315/-, will have to be added on to the Rs. 600/-thus making a total assessment of Rs. 915/-. On this basis, the respondent urged that the total annual assessment for these three items will be Rs. 1215/-; and therefore they urged that the sum of Rs. 200/-which is the contract rent payable by the petitioner is proper and that amount can be fixed by the Rent Controller as the fair-rent. The respondent had instituted in the Additional District Court at Parur, a suit O. S.45/61 as against the petitioner, for recovery of arrears of rent at the contract rate for the period 24 3 59 to 22 c 61; and they claimed rent at the same rate for the future also. 7. That suit appears to have been decreed; but that was the subject of appeal by the petitioner, in this Court, as A. S.287/63. That appeal was dealt with by my learned brothers, Mr. Justice Joseph and Mr. Justice Raghavan by their judgment dated 5th October 1964; a certified copy of the judgment has been marked in these proceedings as Ext. D 10. The only aspect that now requires to be noted and decided by the learned judges in that appeal, is regarding the first point that arose for decision, before the learned judges. Justice Joseph and Mr. Justice Raghavan by their judgment dated 5th October 1964; a certified copy of the judgment has been marked in these proceedings as Ext. D 10. The only aspect that now requires to be noted and decided by the learned judges in that appeal, is regarding the first point that arose for decision, before the learned judges. The learned judges have stated, that in decreeing the claim of the plaintiff at the contract rate, the lower court has missed to take note of the amendment effected to S.8 (2) of the Act; and finally they wound up the discussion on this aspect, by observing that in view of the amendment of the section referred to above, the trial court should pass a decree for arrears of rent only at the rate at which the fair-rent has to be fixed, that is, municipal assessment, plus 15 per cent of the same. In this view, the learned judges on this part of the case held that the decree cannot be supported. Ultimately, the learned judges remanded the suit for fresh consideration. The learned judges in Ext. D-10, have also held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree for future rent, especially when no recovery of possession was being asked for. 8. That suit O. S.45/61 came back to the District Court on remand. The respondent had again instituted before the same court, another suit O. S.3c/64, claiming arrears at the contract rate from 24 c 61 the date of institution of O. S.45/61, till 2310 64. Now reverting back to the order of the Rent Controller in R. C. P. 4/62 the Rent Controller proceeds on the basis, especially as there is no controversy, that the suit properties bear at present the municipal door numbers as 229, 230 and 232 and the Municipal assessment is Rs. 315/-, Rs. 360/-and Rs. 540/- respectively. 9. Though the petitioner wanted to rely upon the municipal assessment as on the date of the letting in 1124, as evidenced by Ext. P.2 and wanted the fair-rent to be fixed on that basis at Rs. 53/-per month, the Rent Controller was obviously not inclined to accept that contention. 10. Quite rightly, in view of the decision of the Full Bench, which had then been pronounced and reported in Kunhamad Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. P.2 and wanted the fair-rent to be fixed on that basis at Rs. 53/-per month, the Rent Controller was obviously not inclined to accept that contention. 10. Quite rightly, in view of the decision of the Full Bench, which had then been pronounced and reported in Kunhamad Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. 366), the Rent Controller proceeds on the basis, that the municipal assessment, at the time, when the order is being pronounced will have to be taken into account. Therefore he adverts to the municipal assessment registers, Ext. D-2, which relate to the period 1957-58 to 1961-62, wherein the numbers of the buildings have been given as 229,230 and 232 and the municipal assessments as Rs. 315/-,360/-and 540/-respectively. The Rent Controller refers to the provisions contained in S.5 of the Act with special reference to the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.5 wherein it has been stated that the fair-rent fixed in proper cases may be lower than, but shall in no case exceed, by more than 15 per cent, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax for the building has been fixed. The Rent Controller adverts to a contention that was raised by the respondent to the effect that at the time when the property tax assessment Register Ext. D-2, was prepared, the municipal authorities have not taken note of the fact that the building in item 1, which was originally a thatched shed on the basis of which the assessment has been made at Rs. 315/-, has since been converted into a tiled building. Therefore the respondent urged that the Rent Controller will have to proceed on the basis that this is a property, for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed. That is, they wanted to rely upon sub-section (3) of S.5 of the Act. 11. So far as this aspect is concerned, the Rent Controller was not prepared to accept the contention of the respondent, though it was prepared to assume that the municipal authorities have not taken note of the change in the nature of the building in item I, at the time when Ext. D-2 was prepared. The view of the Rent Controller is that merely because that in the registers Ext. D-2, the building has been referred to as a thatched shed and assessment has been made only at Rs. D-2 was prepared. The view of the Rent Controller is that merely because that in the registers Ext. D-2, the building has been referred to as a thatched shed and assessment has been made only at Rs. 315/-ignoring the fact that the building is really a tiled one, it cannot be considered to be a case of no assessment having been made by the municipal authorities. 12. But the Rent Controller is of the view that the municipal authorities must have made a mistake in the description of the building. The further reasoning of the Rent Controller is that if a thatched building or shed can be assessed at Rs. 315/-by the municipal authorities under Ext. D-2, it stands to reason that a tiled building will have to be assessed at a higher figure. 13. The Rent Controller refers no doubt to a claim made by the respondent of having to incur a sum of Rs. 600/-for the purpose of effecting alteration as well as an agreement that the petitioner appears to have made promising to pay an additional rent of Rs. 50/-per month, if the thatched building in item 1 is converted into a tiled building. Then the Rent Controller is of the view that the building in item 1, as it exists at present, can be safely assessed at double the figure shown for item 1 in Ext. D-2. That is, as against the assessment evidenced by the Register Ext. D-2 for item 1 in the sum of Rs. 315-, the Rent Controller adopted the figure of Rs. 630/-. There does not appear to have been much of a controversy regarding the other two items, for which the municipal assessment as shown by Ext. D-2 was Rs. 360/-and Rs 540/-. The Rent Controller, on the principles adopted by him, fixes the total annual value of the three items as Rs.1530/-and adds 15 per cent, as he was entitled to do if he was so satisfied, under the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.5 of the Act. The total amount is fixed at Rs. 1760/-and on this basis, the monthly rent is fixed at Rs. 146.66; and this was fixed as the fair-rent by the Rent Controller. 14. The total amount is fixed at Rs. 1760/-and on this basis, the monthly rent is fixed at Rs. 146.66; and this was fixed as the fair-rent by the Rent Controller. 14. There were appeals filed both by the landlord, namely B. R. C. Appeal 3/65 claiming to have the fair-rent fixed at the contract rent, and by the tenant B. R. C., Appeal 8/65 asking fora further reduction than that effected by the Rent Controller. Both the appeals, as well as the two suits referred to above, have been dealt with by the learned District Judge, Parur by a common judgment dated 5th November 1965. Though several aspects have been dealt with by the learned judge, with reference to the contentions that were taken by the parties in the two suits, I do not propose to go into those aspects in this C. R. P.; because I am now called upon only to consider as to whether the fixation of fair-rent by the Rent Controller at Rs. 146.66 per month, and the enhancement made by the learned District Judge and fixing the fair-rent at Rs. 186.87 in the B. R. C. Appeal filed by the respondent is correct or not. Any party aggrieved by the decision, rendered by the learned District Judge, in the suits, will be at liberty to canvass any other points, that may be available to them, in any appeals that may be filed as against those decrees. Therefore I am omitting making any reference to the various issues that have been framed by the learned District Judge as arising for decision in the two suits. 15. Coming to the two appeals filed by the landlord and the tenant namely B. R. C. Appeals 3 and 8/65, the learned District Judge refers to S.5 of the Act, as well as the second proviso to sub-section (2) of S.5. The learned District Judge refers to the agreement indicated by the petitioner in Exts. D-4 and D-5 dated 12 4 56 and 15 4 56 respectively agreeing to pay an additional rent of Rs. 50/-per month if the shed in item 1 is converted into a tiled building. The learned District Judge also accepts the position that under Ext. D-2 the municipal assessments for the properties are only Rs. 315/-, 360/- and 540/-. D-4 and D-5 dated 12 4 56 and 15 4 56 respectively agreeing to pay an additional rent of Rs. 50/-per month if the shed in item 1 is converted into a tiled building. The learned District Judge also accepts the position that under Ext. D-2 the municipal assessments for the properties are only Rs. 315/-, 360/- and 540/-. Here again it is seen that the respondent again pressed before the learned District Judge, that it must be considered that this is a case where no municipal assessment has been made for item 1, which means that there is no municipal assessment at all made and therefore the municipal assessment under Ext. D-2 should not form the criterion for fixation of fair-rent. With this contention, the learned District Judge, like the Rent Controller, does not agree, because the learned District Judge categorically states that it cannot be stated that there is no municipal assessment at all for the building standing in item 1 even as a thatched shed. 16. But the learned District Judge is of the view that the mere doubling of the assessment for item 1, under Ext. D-2, from Rs. 315/- to Rs. 630/-adopted by the Rent Controller is erroneous. The learned District Judge is of the view, that under Ext. D-2 the annual assessment is Rs. 315/-and the gross annual value must have been Rs. 350/-. Then the learned District Judge refers to a claim made by the respondent of having spent, nearly Rs. 600/- for thatching the shed and it should be taken into account for fixing the annual value. The view of the learned District Judge is that there is no acceptable evidence regarding this claim made by the respondent. But the learned District Judge after again reiterating that the lessor, namely the respondent is not competent to contend that the municipal assessment as representing the gross rent for the thatched shed fixed by him at Rs. 350/-is not correct, nevertheless inasmuch as the petitioner has agreed, under Exts. D4 and D5 to pay an additional month's rent of Rs. 50/-if the thatched shed is converted into a tiled shed holds that the sum of Rs. 600/-, representing the annual rental increase agreed to be paid by the petitioner, must be added to the rental value of item 1, which the learned District judge has already fixed at Rs. 350/-. 50/-if the thatched shed is converted into a tiled shed holds that the sum of Rs. 600/-, representing the annual rental increase agreed to be paid by the petitioner, must be added to the rental value of item 1, which the learned District judge has already fixed at Rs. 350/-. Therefore adding this sum of Rs. 600/-,the learned District Judge finally fixes the annual value of item 1 at Rs. 950/-. 17. Similarly for the other two items also, the learned District Judge makes an increase of 10 per cent and fixes the annual value at Rs. 400/-and 600/-respectively. Ultimately he arrives at a total of Rs. 1950/-and adds 15 per cent under the proviso to S.5 (2) of the Act, and fixes the total at Rs. 2242.50 Finally the learned District Judge fixes the fair-rent at Rs. 186.87 per month. The result was that the appeal filed by the tenant, namely B. R. C. 8/65 was dismissed and the appeal filed by the landlord B. R. C. 3/65 was allowed in part. 18. The approach made by both the authorities, in the manner of fixing of fair-rent is attacked by Mr. T. M. Mhaalinga Iyer, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner in this revision. The learned counsel raised a contention that the order of the High Court, passed in A. S.287/63, will clearly show that no discretion has been left to the subordinate authority to fix the fair-rent except in accordance with the principle laid down by the learned Judges. I have already referred to the consideration of the 1st question in Ext. D-10 and the expression of opinion by the learned judges that the arrears of rent can be decreed only at the rate at which the fair-rent is to be fixed, namely municipal assessment of rent plus 15 per cent. Therefore what the authorities should have done, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court, is to look into the assessment register and find out what the municipal assessment for these properties is and increase it by 15 per cent. Instead of adopting the simple method and which is the only method they are bound to adopt, the learned counsel pointed out, that the principle laid down by the learned judges stand completely ignored. 19. Mr. Instead of adopting the simple method and which is the only method they are bound to adopt, the learned counsel pointed out, that the principle laid down by the learned judges stand completely ignored. 19. Mr. T. C. N. Menon, learned counsel for the respondent landlord no doubt, controverts the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel pointed out that the question of the municipal assessment or what is the nature of the assessment made by the municipal authorities that is to be taken into account are all matters which did not arise for consideration at the hands of the learned judges when disposing of A. S, 287/63. That question directly arose only in the application filed by the petitioner R. C. P. 4/62 for fixation of fair-rent. Therefore, though there is an observation to the effect in Ext. D-10, it was not intended that the subordinate courts should adopt only that principle ignoring any other materials that may be placed before the court, Though I appreciate that there is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not think that the hands of the subordinate court, at any rate when disposing of R. C. P. 4/62 and the appeals therefrom, has in any way, been tied down by any categorical direction being given by a Division Bench of this Court. If there was such a direction, quite naturally the learned counsel is well-founded in his contention that it is not open to the subordinate tribunals to travel beyond the principles laid down by this Court. Therefore whatever may be the position regarding the suits, which were remanded by the learned judges as well as the fresh suit that has been instituted by the respondent in my opinion, the observation of the learned judges cannot be considered to have the effect of practically concluding the rights of parties one way or other even so far as the R. C.P. proceedings are concerned. 20. No doubt, any observation made by this Court, interpreting a particular provision of the statute must certainly be given due regard and respect by the subordinate courts. But so far as I could see, the learned judges have not embarked upon any such attempt in Ext. D-10. 20. No doubt, any observation made by this Court, interpreting a particular provision of the statute must certainly be given due regard and respect by the subordinate courts. But so far as I could see, the learned judges have not embarked upon any such attempt in Ext. D-10. Therefore so far as these proceedings are concerned, in my opinion, both the subordinate courts cannot be considered to have in any manner, acted contrary to the directions given in Ext. D-10. 21. Now coming to the merits of the contentions that are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the very strenuous attacks that is made against the approach made by the two subordinate authorities, is that both the authorities have concurrently rejected the contention raised by the respondent that the property in question must be considered to be a property for which there has been no assessment made. That is, S.5 of the Act deals with the determination of fair-rent. Sub-section (2) makes it obligatory on the Rent Court to take into account the property tax or house tax fixed for a building. The proviso which has been extracted earlier, to sub-section (2) of S.5, gives no doubt a discretion to the court to fix the fair-rent not exceeding 15 per cent of the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax has been fixed and in some cases even lower than that figure. The learned counsel referred to sub-section (3) of S.5 dealing with instances, among others of cases, where there is no property tax or house tax fixed for the buildings. If the claim of the respondent that the building must be considered to be one in which no property tax or house tax is fixed is accepted then the necessary enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) should have been made. Obviously both the authorities could not have made that enquiry because they have rejected the contention of the respondent and held that it cannot be said that this is a property, for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed. On the other hand, both the authorities have unanimously expressed the view that this is a property for which property tax has been fixed as evidenced by Ext. D2. On the other hand, both the authorities have unanimously expressed the view that this is a property for which property tax has been fixed as evidenced by Ext. D2. Having rejected the contention referred to above of the respondent, and accepted the claim of the petitioner that this is a property in respect of which property tax has been fixed, then the duty of the court is clearly to act in accordance with sub-section (2) of S.5, read with the proviso thereof. Therefore the two authorities have no right to make a guess work as to what the municipal assessment on item 1 as it now exists, would or would not have been, but only to look into the registers and find out what exactly is the municipal assessment under Ext. D2 for item 1 which bears the municipal door No. 229, as admitted by all parties. The doubling of the assessment fixed under Ext. D2 by the Rent Controller or by adding to the amount shown as assessment another Rs. 600/- representing the annual rental increase agreed to be paid by the petitioner by the appellate authority are both not warranted by the clear provisions of the statute. Therefore inasmuch as there is clear evidence to show what the municipal assessment for these three items, which form part of a common lease and for which a common rent is payable by the petitioner, the total annual value is only Rs. 1215/-; and even if the authorities felt that the respondent is entitled to the maximum increase of 15 per cent as provided in the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.5 of the Act the fair-rent will work out only to Rs. 116.15 per month; and that is the fair-rent, which according to the learned counsel, is payable by his client and can be recovered by the landlord. 22. Mr. T. C. N. Menon, learned counsel for the respondent again raised a contention that the lease of all the properties being a common one and the rent payable by the petitioner again common for all these buildings, it is evident from the materials available in this case that there has been no proper assessment made by the municipal authorities in respect of item 1, as a tiled building. Admittedly what was once a thatched building in item 1, bearing municipal door No. 229, for which the assessment registers show an annual value of Rs. 315/-, has been altered at the request of the petitioner during the material time into a tiled building. The tiled building, as such, has not been freshly assessed by the municipal authorities; and that assessment will be done by the authorities only when a question of general revision is being taken up. Therefore this is certainly a case where it can be safely held that no property tax or house tax has been fixed for the properties in question, in which case, the proper provision applicable is sub-section (3) of S.5. It was absolutely unnecessary for the subordinate authorities to embark upon an enquiry as to what is the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the period, as referred to in sub-section (3) because the petitioner never contested or claimed that the increase agreed to be paid by him is not the proper rent which is payable for the premises in question. There fore inasmuch as the petitioner has not taken up that position, the decision of the two subordinate authorities can very well be sustained on the principles laid down in sub-section (3) of S.5 of the Act. His client had really asked for a further enhancement being fixed at the contract rate before the appellate authority has not accepted that claim in toto. The petitioner having agreed to pay a higher rent and the construction having been made at the specific request and promise made by the petitioner, he cannot be allowed now to resile from the agreement made by him to pay, what even according to him, would be a proper rent for the premises in question. Both the authorities have considered the claim made by the parties; and they have fixed, what according to them is the proper fair-rent for the premises in question and there is absolutely no error or illegality in the exercise of such jurisdiction which will warrant interference by this Court under S.115, C. P. C. 23. Before I express my views on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both parties, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions contained in the statute. Before I express my views on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both parties, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions contained in the statute. Though the statute of 1c5c has now been replaced by the recent enactment Act 11/1965 inasmuch as the provisions under the two statutes are substantially the same, I will refer only to the provisions contained in the 1c5c Act, as amended by Act ZZIZ/1961. 24. S.5 deals with the determination of fair-rent. Sub-section (1) gives jurisdiction to the Rent Court to fix the fair-rent after making such an enquiry as it thinks fit and its jurisdiction can be invoked either by a landlord or by a tenant. Sub-sections (2) and (3) in my opinion are fairly important and they deal with two different types of buildings. Sub-section (2) deals with cases where the property tax or house tax has been fixed; and the wording of sub-section (2) clearly shows that it is obligatory, under those circumstances, for the Rent Court to take into consideration the property tax or house tax for the building. I will have to refer immediately to a decision of a Full Bench of this Court, to which I was also a party, wherein the effect and scope of the provisions contained in S.5(2), as well as the proviso to the said sub-section, has been dealt with by this Court. Under sub-section (2) the Rent Court must have regard to the property tax or house tax as entered in the property tax register. The proviso makes it clear that the Rent Court can fix the fair-rent in appropriate cases even lower than the property tax or house tax fixed; but it places the outer limit by stating that the fair-rent shall in no case exceed by more than 15 per cent the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax for the building has been fixed. Sub-section (3) deals with cases, where there is no property tax or house tax and also to certain other class of properties with which we are not now concerned. Unless the respondent is able to satisfy the court, that this property is one for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed, there will be no scope for invoking the provisions of sub-section (3) to S.5 of the Act. Ss. Unless the respondent is able to satisfy the court, that this property is one for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed, there will be no scope for invoking the provisions of sub-section (3) to S.5 of the Act. Ss. 6 and 7 deal with the increase in the fair rent that has been already fixed, under the circumstances mentioned therein. Sub-section (2) to S.8 makes it very clear that the rent that is payable, notwithstanding any contract, for a building if it is a building coming under clause (i) or clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.5 that is dealing with both residential and non-residential building-shall be, if the property tax or house tax has been fixed by the local authority, the maximum rent that may be fixed by the rent court under S.5(2) of the Act or the agreed rent, whichever is less. Therefore if there is an assessment of property tax and evidence is available regarding that aspect, and if the Rent Court could have fixed a maximum rent having due regard to the provisions contained in S.5 (2), read with the proviso, S, 8 (2) makes it clear that the obligation of a tenant is only to pay that rent which would have been fixed by the Rent Controller and this notwithstanding any contract that may have been entered into between the parties. 25. In connection with the last contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is also necessary to refer to the nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court. Though the C. R. P. has been filed also under S.115 C. P. C., the specific provision under which the C. R. P. should have been filed, and to which a reference is made, in the memo of grounds is S.20 of the Act; and in this case, the District Court was the appellate authority and if so, this Court exercised jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court, will be dealt with by me, after referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court had to deal with an analogous provision contained in another statute. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court, will be dealt with by me, after referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court had to deal with an analogous provision contained in another statute. The effect of S.5 (2) of the Act, and the proviso has been dealt with and explained by the Full Bench of this Court in Kunhamed Keyi v. Premalatha 1962 KLT. 366. The Full Bench has held that under S.5 (2) of the Act, when the fair-rent is fixed the municipal assessment then existing must be, relied on for the purpose of the proviso and the Full Bench has also held that applying the ordinary rule governing legal proceedings, the fixation by the court relates back to the dates when the court's jurisdiction was invoked by a party. The object of the Legislature in giving importance to the municipal assessment and contained in sub-section (2) and the proviso thereon in S.5, has been dealt with by the Full Bench at pages 370 and 371 of the Report. At page 371 Mr. Justice Raman Nayar, speaking for the court; has stated that the monthly rent entered in the municipal tax register can be readily worked out if the rate of taxation is known. It is also observed that because this is a ready and reasonably accurate means of finding out what rent the building can reasonably be expected to fetch and inasmuch as there are provisions made in the Municipal Acts in question regarding the manner in which the annual assessment of a building is to be made, those proceedings take into account, before assessing the tax, the gross annual rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year. It is also emphasised that the annual value is fixed by a municipal authority or local authority after due enquiry and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the value so fixed by a statutory authority represents the rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to let. It is also emphasised that the annual value is fixed by a municipal authority or local authority after due enquiry and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the value so fixed by a statutory authority represents the rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to let. The Full Bench also takes note of the fact that when the value fixed is too high, the owner of the building, namely the landlord, would naturally complain since the tax levied on him would be correspondingly high; and he can obtain redress by an appeal; and that if it is too low, it would be something in which the landlord has acquiesced to his advantage in the shape of lower tax, so that there would be nothing improper or unfair in holding him to that value. These are the principles in my opinion, which have to be borne in mind, in adjudicating upon the contentions that have been raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 26. In view of the clear and unambiguous statements contained in the two orders of the subordinate authorities, that the property in question, which is the subject of a common lease in favour of the petitioner cannot be considered to be, a property for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed, the irresistible or rather the only conclusion that the two courts should have arrived at was to find out what exactly is the annual assessment made for these properties for which there was unimpeachable evidence before the lower courts in the form of Ext. D 2. In my opinion, the approach made by the Rent Controller of arbitrarily doubling the annual value fixed for item 1 from Rs. 315/- to Rs. 630/- on the assumption that a tiled building would have been assessed at a higher figure, and the further approach made by the learned District Judge, taking into account the annual increase in the rent promised by the petitioner, are absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the statute. 315/- to Rs. 630/- on the assumption that a tiled building would have been assessed at a higher figure, and the further approach made by the learned District Judge, taking into account the annual increase in the rent promised by the petitioner, are absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the statute. Having accepted the position that this is a property, for which a property tax or house tax has been fixed, the duty of the authorities was to have due regard to the mandatory provisions contained in sub-section (2) of S.5, read with the proviso thereof, which makes it clear that the only discretion that is given to the authorities concerned if they do not fix the fair-rent below the municipal assessment is to grant an increase not exceeding 15 per cent of the said assessment. No doubt, Mr. T. M. Mhaalinga Iyer also urged that in this case the appellate court has made a double mistake namely of increasing in the first instance the municipal assessments by 10 per cent and then again adding another 15 per cent under the proviso. Even otherwise according to him there is no justification for awarding the maximum increase of 15 per cent as specified in the proviso to subsection (2) of S.5 of the Act. 27. In my opinion, the proper approach that should have been made by the two authorities was to have due regard to the entries contained in the municipal assessment registers for the 3 items, during the material period and which is clear from Ext. D2 under which the assessment is a sum of Rs. 315/-,360/-and 540/-, That is, the total annual municipal assessment for the three items is a sum of Rs. 1215/. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, which contention has in my opinion been rightly negatived by the two subordinate courts, that merely because in respect of item 1, Ext. D2 deals with an assessment of a thatched shed and not a tiled shed as it exists now, this must be treated as a property for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed. D2 deals with an assessment of a thatched shed and not a tiled shed as it exists now, this must be treated as a property for which no property tax or house tax has been fixed. As pointed out by the Full Bench in the extract referred to above, if the property tax has been fixed at a lower figure it must be considered that the landlord has acquiesced in the same and he cannot be allowed to wriggle out from the entries which are against his interest and found in the municipal registers. No doubt the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the question of re-assessment of the property may be taken up by the municipal authorities only at the time of general revision. This Court is not concerned with all those aspects especially in view of the clear provisions of the statute. No doubt Mr. T. M. Mhaalinga Iyer pointed out that it was perfectly open to the respondent to have moved the municipal authorities for re-assessment of the property in item 1, after it was converted into a tiled building. But whatever it is it is not the province of this Court to go into all these matters, because this Court is only to find out whether the statute has made provisions on these aspects and if so, the subordinate courts have contravened the provisions of the statute. Ultimately the position is that Ext. D2 clearly shows that the total annual assessment of these three items, which are the subject of a common lease, at the material time, comes to Rs. 1215/-; and giving the maximum increase allowable under the Act by virtue of the proviso to sub-section (2) to S.5, the fair-rent that can be fixed for this property is only Rs. 116.15 per month. If a further investigation is to be made, I would have remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration at the hands of the Rent Controller. But in view of the figures available on records, I do not think that course need be adopted in this case. 28. Coming to the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, in my opinion, if this Court is exercising jurisdiction under S.115 C. P. C., the position may be entirely different. I am well aware of the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pandurang v. Maruti f AIR. 28. Coming to the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, in my opinion, if this Court is exercising jurisdiction under S.115 C. P. C., the position may be entirely different. I am well aware of the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Pandurang v. Maruti f AIR. 1966 SC. 153) wherein their Lordships have explained the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction exercised by this Court under S.115 CPC. But in this case the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under S.20 of the Act. S.20 clearly shows that the High Court, in the circumstances mentioned therein, can call for and examine the record, for the purpose of satisfying itself "as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings". 29. Similar expressions occurring in S.15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Act IIII/1949) conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court has come up for consideration at the hands of the Supreme Court, whose decision is reported in Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan (AIR. 1960 SC. 655). At page 658, it will be seen that one of the contentions raised before the Supreme Court against the interference made by the High Court was, that the High Court was in error in coming to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the Rent Control authorities. In this connection, the Supreme Court refers to the provisions contained in S.15(5) of the East Punjab Act and expresses the opinion that the power conferred on the High Court under that section, is wider than that conferred by S.115 CPC. In particular, the Supreme Court categorically lays down, if I may say so with respect, that under S.15(5) of the East Punjab Act, in question, the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order, which was the subject of revision; and that those provisions will clearly justify the High Court examining the propriety or legality of a finding arrived at by the authorities. Applying the same principles, in my opinion, S.20 of the Act gives ample jurisdiction to this Court, when exercising jurisdiction under that section, to examine the propriety or legality of the principles adopted by the two subordinate authorities in the matter of fixation of fair-rent; and I have already expressed the view that the fixation of fair-rent by the two subordinate authorities is absolutely on the basis of a guess work, and based on no legal principles and so quite contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in S.5(2) of the Act. 30. Therefore, the orders of the two subordinate authorities are modified and this CRP. allowed to the extent indicated above; and the fair-rent payable by the petitioner is fixed in the sum of Rs. 116.15 per month. No order as to costs in the CRP.