Judgment :- 1. This Revision Petition arises in proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The revision petitioner who is the tenant of a house in Ernakulam Municipality filed R.C.P. No. 134 of 1965 in the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, for fixation or fair rent of his house under S.5 of the Act. The Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the building on the basis of the property tax assessment made by the Municipal authorities for the period 1960 1965 overruling the contention of the landlord that the assessment for the period 1965 70 was the relevant factor to be taken into consideration. The landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The present revision-petitioner sought to contend before the appellate authority that the amendment introduced by Act 7 of 1966 applied to the proceedings and, in that view, the decision of the Rent Control Court was correct. The appellate authority rejected this contention holding that the amending Act 7 of 1966 did not apply and therefore the property tax relating to the period 1965-70 was to be taken as the basis. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this decision, preferred a revision to the District Judge which was dismissed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner is that under the Act, the relevant property tax to be taken into account was the one in force at the time of the letting and, alternatively, the amendment to Act 2 of 1965, which was in force at the time the proceedings were decided by the Rent Control Court, was applicable to the facts of this case. I am afraid, both the contentions are devoid of merit. 3. The first plea raised by the petitioner is directly covered by the Full Bench ruling of this court reported in Kunhammad Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. 366). That decision is authority for the proposition that the proviso to S.5 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1959 (Act 16 of 1959) applies to sub-s. (1) of that Section and, therefore, the relevant property tax is the one relating to the period immediately prior to the application for fixation of fair rent. 366). That decision is authority for the proposition that the proviso to S.5 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1959 (Act 16 of 1959) applies to sub-s. (1) of that Section and, therefore, the relevant property tax is the one relating to the period immediately prior to the application for fixation of fair rent. It will be noticed that Ss 5(1) and (2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1959 are in pari materia with the provisions of S.5(1) and (2) of Act 2, of 1965, unamended by Act 7 of 1966. Therefore, the Full Bench ruling is applicable to S.5(2) of the 1965 Act also. That being so, the relevant property tax register which should form the basis for fixation of fair rent is the register relating to 1965-70. It has to be mentioned that the petition for fixation of fair rent was filed on 4-11-1965. The property tax register relating to the years 1965-70 came into force on 1-10-1965 so that on the date of the application the property tax register for the years 1965-70 is the one in force. 4. The second contention is that the amendment introduced by Act 7 of 1966 is applicable and, if that were so, the property tax to be taken into account must be the tax for the house prevailing two years immediately before the date of the application as seen from the Municipal Tax Register. There can hardly be any doubt that Act 7 of 1966 has no retrospective operation. When the application was filed in 1965, there was no amendment and the change brought about by the amendment subsequent to the filing of the application cannot be applied for fixing the fair rent. It is also of significance that the amendment is not a procedural one but affects the substantive right of the parties; in that it changes the very basis on which the fair rent has to be ascertained. This contention of the petitioner has also therefore to fail. 5. It was lastly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under S.34 of the Act, pending proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 (Kerala Act 16 of 1959) have to be continued under the corresponding provisions of Act 2 of 1965 and therefore the amendment effected by Act 7 of 1966 is applicable. 5. It was lastly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under S.34 of the Act, pending proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 (Kerala Act 16 of 1959) have to be continued under the corresponding provisions of Act 2 of 1965 and therefore the amendment effected by Act 7 of 1966 is applicable. This contention has no validity as the reference to proceedings under this Act, under S.34, is to the unamended Act 2 of 1965 and it does not cover the subsequent amendments made to the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that his right to question the validity of the fixation of the property tax for the years 1965-70 may be left open and the Rent Control Court may be directed to investigate that matter also. Of course, this decision will in no way affect the right of the petitioner to contend before the Rent Control Court that the fixation of the property tax so far as it relates to the house in dispute is not valid and binding on him. It will be open to the Rent Control Court to consider that question and come to its own conclusion on the basis of the materials placed before it. 7. In the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed; but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.