Judgment :- 1. This revision under S.115 CPC. is by the tenants of a building and arises out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent initiated at the instance of the landlord. The main question in dispute relates to the provision of law which should apply to the present case, namely, whether sub-s. (2) or (3) of S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. 2. The building is a non-residential one and appears to have been continuously in the occupation of the tenants revision petitioners as early as from the year 1939. It is submitted by the revision petitioners that there is no definite finding by any of the courts below as to whether there was property tax in respect of the building at the time of its letting. However, the observation of the Rent Controller that there was no Panchayat in existence at the time of the letting of the building is not seriously challenged before me. If that be so, there is no likelihood of property tax having been fixed by the Panchayat or Municipality for this building at the time of letting. 3. The entrustment of the building to the revision petitioners is stated to be under an oral arrangement on a rental of Rs. 2/- per annum. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent, mostly basing his conclusion on a report submitted by the commissioner, at Rs, 10/-per mensem. The learned counsel submits that this increase is not only unwarranted in terms of the provisions of the Act, but also out of all proportions, as it works out at 60 times of the original rent. 4. Incidentally the question as to what should be the Act which should apply, whether Act 16 of 1959 or 2 of 1965, also has arisen. The proceeding started in the year 1963 was pending at the time when Act 2 of 1965 came into force The proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.34 of the Act 2 of 1965 reads as follows:-"Provided that any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy which could have been instituted, continued or enforced under the said Act if it had not expired, may be instituted continued or enforced under the corresponding provisions of this Act." This proviso makes it clear that pending proceedings are to be continued under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to examine the various provisions relating to fixation of fair rent contained in sub-sections (1) to (3) of S.5 of Act 16 of 1959, as fair rent in the present case has to be fixed under the provisions of Act 2 of 1965. 5. Now, before entering into the main question, one other incidental point that has been raised by Sri. P. C. Balakrishna Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, has to be dealt with. That point relates to the question as to whether the building has been or has not been assessed to property tax, which, according to the learned counsel, is a pertinent one in proceedings relating to fixation of fair rent. As has already been stated, this proceedings was initiated at the instance of the landlord. However, in the application, which has been read over to me, there are no averments as to whether the building bad been assessed to property tax. and if so, what the tax was. My attention has been drawn to the provisions contained in R.7 and 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1959, which, I am told, are still in force. Sub-rule (1) of R.7 reads as follows: "Every application under the Act shall, in addition to the particulars necessary to support it, contain also the particulars prescribed in R.12 so far as they may be applicable and every application for eviction under S.11 shall also state the grounds on which the application is made." The relevant portion of R.12 is extracted below: "The particulars to be furnished under S.27 shall be the following: (10) Rental value as entered in the property tax assessment of the Municipal Council, Panchayat or Local Board, as the case may be. S. 26 of the Act (Act 2 of 1965) provides that executive authorities of local bodies are to furnish certified extracts from property tax or house tax assessment books showing the rental value of the building or buildings and that such certified copy shall be received as evidence of the facts stated therein in proceedings under that Act. S.27 provides that "27. Landlord and tenant to furnish particulars. S.27 provides that "27. Landlord and tenant to furnish particulars. Every landlord and every tenant of a building shall be bound to furnish to the Accommodation Controller the Rent Control Court or any person authorised by it in that behalf such particulars in respect of the buildings as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act." The submission of the learned counsel is that it was incumbent on the part of the respondents herein to furnish details of the property tax to which the building in question was assessed, and that the respondents herein having failed in that behalf, when a petition was filed by the revision petitioners in the District Court during the pendency of the revisional proceedings to receive extract from the property register as additional evidence, the court declined to receive it on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in that behalf. It is contended that in doing so the District Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction which is really vested in it. 6. Sri. C. S. Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that inasmuch as the District Court as the revisional authority was exercising the jurisdiction specially conferred on it under the provisions of the Act, it could have only perused the records already before fit, and could not have legally entertained a petition for receiving additional evidence which was purely beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction. In support of his contention Sri. Balakrishnan has invited ray attention to the provisions contained in S.23 of Act 2 of 1965, which confers certain powers vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure on the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. The contention of the learned counsel, however, is that the section is conspicuous for the absence of mention of the District Court as one of the authorities on which such powers are conferred, and therefore clause relating to discovery and inspection in S.23 has no application so far as the revisional Court is concerned. He has also drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in Doraswami Chettiar v. Nhandammadan and others (1969 KLJ. He has also drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in Doraswami Chettiar v. Nhandammadan and others (1969 KLJ. 227) where, after a fairly lengthy discussion on the point, Eradi J. has held as follows: "The District Judge exercising revisional jurisdictional under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not therefore be justified in interfering with a finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority, merely because he is of the view that on a correct appreciation of the evidence a different conclusion should have been arrived at by the appellate authority." The question that was posed in that case was mainly this: Whether the revisional court could embark upon a reappraisal of the evidence as could be done by the appellate authority. The above quoted observation has been made in that context. The question whether, in a particular case, the District Court exercising power under S.20 of the Act could entertain an application for reception of additional evidence was not considered in that decision The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope and ambit of S 20 of the Act. In the decision reported in Mathai v. Subordinate Judge (1969 KLT. 348), Mitter J has observed as follows: "Mr. Daphtary next argued that it was not open to the District Court to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge holding against sub letting and thereby confirming the order of the Rent Controller on this point under S.20 of the Act of 1965. The words of S.20 how. ever are much wider than those in S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure under S.20 (1) the District Court is empowered to call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. On the words of this section we cannot hold that a revision is limited to a mere question of jurisdiction. In our view the District judge was empowered to consider whether on the evidence the finding of the Subordinate Judge was proper." From the wording of S.20 it appears that it is within the power of the District Court to examine the legality, propriety and regularity of the order that is challenged before it. In our view the District judge was empowered to consider whether on the evidence the finding of the Subordinate Judge was proper." From the wording of S.20 it appears that it is within the power of the District Court to examine the legality, propriety and regularity of the order that is challenged before it. As I have already stated, the landlord who was the applicant before the Rent Controller bad a duty in terms of S.27 read with R.7 and 12 of the Rules to furnish details regarding tax to which the building was assessed, and the failure to do so is really a matter resulting in irregularity though, in a strict sence, it cannot be said that it affects the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above and also in the light of the more recent decision of the Supreme Court in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur (AIR. 1972 SC. 2379) it cannot be held that the District Court is barred in appropriate cases from entertaining an application for reception of additional evidence, if in the opinion of the District Court such reception is necessary for a proper scrutiny to ascertain whether the impugned order is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety. In this view I bold that the District Court was not correct in declining to exercise the jurisdiction in the context, which was really vested in that court. 7. Now reverting to the main question whether the application for fixation of fair rent in the present case should be dealt with under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of S.5 of Act 2 of 1965, it is the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioners that all the courts below have committed a serious error of law affecting the jurisdiction in treating that the matter as one falling under sub-section (3). To facilitate easy reference, the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (3) of S.5 are reproduced below: "5. Determination of fair rent. (1) The Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building fix the fair rent for such building after holding such inquiry as it thinks fit. To facilitate easy reference, the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (3) of S.5 are reproduced below: "5. Determination of fair rent. (1) The Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building fix the fair rent for such building after holding such inquiry as it thinks fit. (2) In fixing the fair rent the Court shall take into consideration the property tax or house tax fixed for the building at the time of letting in the property tax register op house tax register of the local authority within whose area the building is situated: Provided that in the case of (i) any residential build ing, or, (ii) any non residential building excepting a building to which fittings have been affixed or in which machinery have been installed and such fittings or machinery have been excluded from valuation for the purpose of fixing the property tax or house tax by a local authority, the fair rent fixed may in proper cases be lower than, but shall in no case exceed by more than fifteen per cent, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax for the building, prevailing two years immediately before the date of the application, was fixed or if the building was not assessed to property tax or house tax before the said period of two years; the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax prevailing immediately before the date of the application was fixed. (3) If there is no property tax or house tax fixed for the building or if it is not based on a rental basis or if the building is situated in an area which is not a City, Municipality, panchayat or in any other local authority, the fair rent shall be fixed after taking into consideration the prevailing rates of real in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months preceding the letting." It is sub-s. (1) which confers jurisdiction on the Rent Controller to fix fair rent in respect of a building. Sub-s. (2) provides the mode in which fair rent has to be fixed. Sub-s. (2) provides the mode in which fair rent has to be fixed. Sub-s. (2) (omitting the provisos) requires that while fixing fair rent the court shall take into consideration the property tax or house tax fixed for the building at the time of letting in the property tax register or house tax register of the local authority within whose area the building is situated. This means that while fixing fair rent the court should give due weight and proper consideration to the rent that was prevalent at the time of letting of the building as gathered from the property tax or bouse tax to which that building was assessed at the time of letting. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that as the building was not assessed to building tax or property tax by any panchayat or municipality at the time of letting, the question of proceeding to fix fair rent in accordance with sub-s. (2) of S.5 does not arise at all in this case. Now, in this context, we have to consider the scope of the proviso also. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Kunhammad Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. 366 (F.B.)) 'But. although from the punctuation it would appear that the proviso is a proviso to sub-s. (2), it is clear that the principal matter in relation to which it stands as a promo is sub-s. (1). Sub-s. (2) refers only to a matter which the court has to take into consideration in fixing the fair rent. It is sub-s. (1) that says that the Court shall fix the fair rent sub-s. (1) being the provision under which the fair rent is fixed, it follows that the proviso referring to the fair rent fixed, must relate to that sub-section rather than to the sub-section which refers to a matter to be taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent. It is, therefore, clear that if the proviso is read along with sub-s. (1) fair rent in appropriate cases be less than the rent as disclosed by the relevant entries in the property tax register or house tax register, but cannot in any case exceed 15 % of the rent. It is, therefore, clear that if the proviso is read along with sub-s. (1) fair rent in appropriate cases be less than the rent as disclosed by the relevant entries in the property tax register or house tax register, but cannot in any case exceed 15 % of the rent. The point of time which is relevant for the purpose of reckoning the rent of the building as disclosed by the property tax register or house tax register is indicated as two years prior to the filing of the application in the present Act, though that was not made clear in the previous Act Probably this clarification is in the light of the decision of this Court in Kunhammad Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. 366 (FB )). The position has been further clarified by Vaidialingam J., in Auto Transport Union (P) Ltd. v. Cardamom Marketing Co. Ltd. (1966 KLT. 1063). In Para.24 it has been observed as follows: "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. His Lordship seeks support to this conclusion from the reasoning given by Raman Nayar J., as then he was. in Kunhammad Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. 366 (FB.)) to which Vaidialingam J. also was a party. The scheme and purpose of the Act appear to be to give adequate protection to tenants of buildings which have not been assessed to property tax or house tax at the time of letting. In other words, it does not appear to be the intention of the legislature to place such tenants in a disadvantageous position. If the argument emphasizing the words "at the time of letting" appearing in sub-s. (1) is accepted and fair rent is proceeded to be fixed under sub-s. (3), in my view, it would run contra to the very spirit of the provisions of the Act. The Full Bench decision also lends support to this view. If the argument emphasizing the words "at the time of letting" appearing in sub-s. (1) is accepted and fair rent is proceeded to be fixed under sub-s. (3), in my view, it would run contra to the very spirit of the provisions of the Act. The Full Bench decision also lends support to this view. I, therefore, hold that the proper provision that would apply to the present case is what is contained in sub-s. (2), not sub-s. (3), of S.5 of the Act. In that view the orders that have been passed by the courts below are illegal and they are liable to be set aside. 9. Before parting with this matter I should also like to point out that the Rent Controller has fallen in error in accepting the commissioner's report with respect to the fair rent without ascertaining the probable rent for similar building at the time of letting. In terms of sub-s. (3) itself, the fair rent was to be fixed -after taking into consideration the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months preceding the letting". The commissioner's report ought to conform with the requirements as laid down in sub-s. (3). It is rather strange that all the three courts have not adverted to this aspect of the matter, though the position appears to be clear in the light of the provisions contained in sub-s. (3) of S.5 of the Act. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the order of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional court deserves to be set aside, and I do so. The matter is remanded to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the light of the observations contained in this order. There will be no order as to costs. A. N. K. Allowed.