( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the landlord under S. 50 of the mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 against the order passed by the District judge, Bellary in CMA. No. 11 of 1964. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the landlord of the suit premises and the respondent is the tenant. The suit property is situated in Hospet, Bellary District. On an application made under S. 4 (2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946, fair rent was fixed on 4-11-1948 at rs. 185 per month for the suit premises. The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 was repealed by the Madras Buildings (Leage and Rent Control) Act, 1949. By virtue of S. 18 and S. 20 of the Act the rent fixed under the repealed Act continued in respect of the said premises even after the new Act came into force. It is admitted by the landlord that the fair rent of Rs. 185 was fixed on 4-11-1948. The Mysore Rent control Act 1961 came into force on 31-12-1961 and all the corresponding acts in the State of Mysore were repealed by S. 62 of the Act. It is clear from S. 62 of the Mysore Rent Control Act 1961 that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 is one of the Acts repealed. ( 3 ) AFTER the Mysdre Rent Control Act, 1961 came into force, the petitioner made an application HRC. No. 6 of 1963 to the Rent Controller and prayed for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 350 per month. It appears that there was delay in filing the application by the petitioner; but that delay was condoned. The said application was opposed by the respondent. After condoning the delay in filing the application, the Rent Controller passed an order on 26-2-1964 fixing fair rent at Rs. 350 per month as prayed for by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner (Rent Controller) was challenged by the respondent in the Court of the District Judge at Bellary in CMA. No. 11 of 1964. The learned District Judge, Bellary has passed an order on 13th December 1966 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent at Rs. 350 per month. No. 11 of 1964. The learned District Judge, Bellary has passed an order on 13th December 1966 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent at Rs. 350 per month. The learned District Judge held on merits that Rs. 350 would be fair rent for the suit premises and also held that the Rent Controller properly condoned the delay. He however held that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent in respect of the suit premises. The District Judge held that as fair rent was fixed on 4-11-1948 under the provisions of Madras Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1946, which was continued under the 1949 Act, the said rent became fair rent for the purposes of the Mysore Rent Control Act also. As S. 14 (1) of the Mysore Rent Control Act 1961 provides for fixation of fair rent under the Act only in cases where no fair rent has been fixed either before or after the coming into force of the Act, the learned district Judge held that the application of the petitioner for fixation of fair rent in this case was not maintainable as the fair rent had already been fixed under the repealed Act. ( 5 ) IT is the correctness of the aforesaid decision of the learned District Judge that is questioned in this revision petition. Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in this case, no fair rent has been fixed under any of the repealed Acts or under the Mysore rent Control Act, 1961. He submits that as no fair rent has been fixed, the application filed under S. 14 (1) is maintainable. In support of his contention, Sri Subba Rao relies on the definition of the expression ' Fair rent'. S. 3 (f) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 reads as follows:"3 (f) 'fair rent' means the fair rent fixed under S. 14 and includes the fair rent or standard rent fixed under any Act repealed by S. 62. "it is nobody's case that fair rent is fixed under the Mysore Rent Control act, 1961. Therefore the only question for consideration is whether the fair rent has been fixed under any Act repealed by S. 62 of the Mysore Rent control Act of 1961. "it is nobody's case that fair rent is fixed under the Mysore Rent Control act, 1961. Therefore the only question for consideration is whether the fair rent has been fixed under any Act repealed by S. 62 of the Mysore Rent control Act of 1961. According to the submission of Sri Subba Rao, no fair or standard rent has been fixed under any of the repealed Acts, me suit premises, as already mentioned, is in Hospet in the District of Bellary, which District was formerly a part of the then State of Madras where the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 was in force. The question for consideration, as contended by Sri Subba Rao is whether any rent has been fixed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1949. ( 6 ) S. 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 provides for the fixation of fair rent on application by the tenant or by the landlord. By S. 22 of 1949 Act, the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1946 has been repealed. S. 18 of the 1949 Act provides procedure for the existing proceedings, orders, etc. S. 18 (2) reads as follows:" (2) All orders passed or deemed or purporting to have been passed and all decisions given or deemed or purporting to have been given and in which fair rent has been fixed shall continue in force until they are superseded or modified under this Act by the authority competent to do so. "sri Subba Rao's contention is that by virtue of S. 18 (2), the tair rent fixed in this case on 4-11-1948 under me Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1946 is continued in force under the provisions of the 1949 act until the same is modified under the 1949 Act by the authority competent to do so. The contention of Sri Subba Rao is that though by virtue of S. 18 (2) the fair rent fixed under the 1946 Act is continued under the 1949 Act, the same cannot be said to be the rent fixed under the 1949 Act. According to Sri Subba Rao fair rent can only be fixed under S. 4 of the 1949 Act on an application made either by the tenant or the landlord. According to Sri Subba Rao fair rent can only be fixed under S. 4 of the 1949 Act on an application made either by the tenant or the landlord. It is admitted in this case that no application has been made under S. 4 of the 1949 Act either by the landlord or by the tenant for the fixation of fair rent. It is therefore contended that there is no fixation of fair rent as per the provisions of S. 4 of 1949 Act. It is contended that the rent fixed under the 1946 Act and which is continued under Section 18 (2) of the 1949 Act cannot be considered as the rent fixed under any one of the acts repealed by the Mysore Rent Control Act of 1961. In this connection, it is necessary to notice S. 20 of the 1949 Act which reads as follows. " 20 (1) Any rule or order made or deemed or purporting to have been made, any decision or direction given or deemed or purporting to have been given, any notification issued or deemed or purporting to have been issued, any action or proceeding taken or deemed or purporting to have been taken, or anything done or deemed or purporting to have been done- (i) under any provisions of the said Act, and in force immediately before the 1st October 1948, or (ii) on or after the 1st October 1948 under any provision of the said Act on the footing that the said Act was in force at the relevant time, or (iii) under any provision of the said Act as applied to the Pudukkottai and Banganapalle States under the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, on the footing aforesaid, or (iv) under any provision of the said Ordinance, shall, subject to any subsequent modification or cancellation thereof purporting to have been made on or after that date under the said Act on the footing that it was in force at the relevant time, or made under the said Act as applied to the States aforesaid on that footing or under the said Ordinance be deemed to be a rule or order made, decision or direction given, notification issued, action or proceeding taken, or thing done, under the eorresponding provision of this Act. "the clear effect of S. 20 (1) of the Act is that any order passed or any decision taken under the repealed Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) act, 1946 would be deemed to be an order or decision taken under the corresponding provision of the 1949 Act. In this case, the fair rent was fixed under S. 4 (2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946. The corresponding provision for the fixation of fair rent under the 1949 act is S. 4. By virtue of S. 20, a legal fiction therefore arises that an order fixing fair rent under the 1946 Act is deemed to be an order fixing fair rent under Section 4 of the 1949 Act. But Mr. Subba Rao contends that though by fiction the order fixing the fair rent passed under 1946 Act is kept alive for limited purposes under the provision of 1949 Act, it cannot still be said that it amounts to fixing of fair rent under the provisions of 1949 Act. According to Sri Subba Rao the fiction that is brought about either by the provision of S. 18 (2) or by S. 20 (1) is for a limited purpose of continuing the rent that was fixed under the 1946 Act until modified under the 1949 Act. In this connection it is necessary to notice that though s. 4 of 1949 Act provides for fixation of fair rent, the prohibition against the landlord not 10 recover anything more than the fair rent flows from what is contained in S. 6 (1 ). We are not concerned with S. 6 (2) as it deals with a case of contractual rent. S. 6 (1)specifically states that where fair rent has been fixed in respect of a building the landlord is not entitled to claim any amount higher than the fair rent fixed in respect of the premises. If the contention of Mr. Subba Rao is accepted it means that in this case no fair rent has been fixed under S. 4 of 1949 Act, and that, therefore, the prohibition contained in S. 6 of the Act would not be attracted. If the contention of Mr. Subba Rao is accepted it means that in this case no fair rent has been fixed under S. 4 of 1949 Act, and that, therefore, the prohibition contained in S. 6 of the Act would not be attracted. The consequence would be that notwithstanding the fact that under S. 18 (ii) the fair- rent fixed under the 1946 Act is continued, there will be no prohibition against the landlord from collecting rent higher than the rent fixed under the repealed Act of 1946. This, in my opinion, leads to absurdity. The purpose of continuing the fair rent fixed under the 1946 Act by virtue of S. 18 (ii) of the 1949 Act is to see that the landlord does not realise more than what is determined as fair rent. The very purpose of continuing the fair rent fixed under S. 4 (2) of the repealed Act by virtue of S. 18 (ii) of 1949 act would be defeated if the contention of Mr. Subba Rao is accepted. ( 7 ) I am, therefore, of the opinion that the fair rent fixed under the 1946 Act becomes the fair rent fixed under the corresponding provisions of the 1949 Act, subject to its modification under the 1949 Act Admittedly in this case no action was taken under the 1949 Act to get the fair rent modified. By fiction of law, the rent fixed under 1946 Act must be deemed to be the rent fixed under the 1949 Act. If the rent fixed under the 1946 act is deemed to be the rent fixed under the 1949 Act, then it would follow that that is the fair rent within the meaning of the expression 'fair rent' defined under S. 3 (f) of 1961 Act. If as held by me the rent fixed by 1946 act becomes the fair rent fixed under the 1949 Act, then it follows that under S. 14 (1) of the 1961 Act no application for fixation of fair rent would be maintainable. In that view of the matter the learned District Judge was right in allowing the appeal and rejecting the application. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .