Judgment HARI LAL AGARWAL, J. 1. This writ application arises out of a fair rent proceeding instituted by the petitioner in the year 1958 before the House Controller under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, briefly the Act. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a premises bearing Holding No. 68 situated at D. N. Singh Road, in the town of Bhagalpur. Respondent No. 1 is a tenant in the said premises and the monthly rental payable by him was Rs. 39.14. Before the general assessment by the Bhagalpur Municipality, the annual letting value of the holding in question, according to the preceding assessment valid up to 31-3-1958, was Rs. 300.00 only. This was raised from 1-4-1958 to Rs. 470/-. After the revision of the valuation, the petitioner made an application under S. 5 of the Act for determination of the fair rent of the premises in question, praying to fix the same at Rs. 47/- per month, being one-tenth of the amount of the Municipal assessment, as prescribed under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act. The tenant in the meantime filed Title Suit No. 19 of 1960 in the Court of the Munsif, Bhagalpur, challenging the validity of the revised Municipal assessment inter aria on the ground that no notice of the same was given to him. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the same, but this Court in Second Appeal No. 6 of 1966 set aside the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and decreed the suit on 29-6-1971 declaring the revised assessment to be illegal and not binding on the tenant. It was, however, observed that it would be open to the Municipal authorities to revalue or re-assess the holding in question from 1958-59 after giving notice to the occupier (respondent No. 1). 3. Coming back again to the fair rent proceeding. The House controller had earlier fixed the fair rent of the holding in question at Rs. 30.00 per month with effect from 2-4-1958 by his order dated 9-12-1964, which was affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities, on the basis of the old assessment prevailing prior to the revision of April 1958, perhaps on account of the pendency of a title suit. The petitioner came to this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 799 of 1965. The petitioner came to this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 799 of 1965. This Court by order dated 9-11-1966 allowed the writ application, set aside the orders of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 fixing the fair rent of the holding in question and remanded back the matter to the House Controller for disposal in accordance with law as by that time the second appeal was not disposed of and the title suit filed by the tenant had been dismissed by the judgment of the lower appellate Court, and on that account, the revised assessment in question had become operative. 4. After the decision of the second appeal, the old assessment was revised, and for that reason, the fair rent would have been fixed at Rs. 30.00 only, being the one-tenth of the annual value of Rs. 300/-. This would have amounted to a reduction of the monthly rent already being received by the petitioner and perhaps accordingly, he allowed the fair rent proceeding itself to be dismissed for default on 7-2-1972 (Annexure-1). The matter, however, did not end at that stage, and the tenant filed an appeal under Sec.18 of the Act before the Collector, Bhagalpur, who by his order dated 30-10-1972 (Annexure-2), allowed the same and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 30.00 per month. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division (respondent No. 4) by his order dated 24-5-1973 (Annexure-3). The petitioner challenges the appellate and the revisional orders aforesaid by filing the present writ application, and one of the grounds which has been taken and was urged with some force by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 (the tenant) was not a person aggrieved by the dismissal of the fair rent proceeding within the meaning of Sec.18 of the Act and, therefore, he had no right of appeal. Sec.18 of the Act says that "any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may ... ... ... ... prefer an appeal in writing. It was contended that inasmuch as the petitioner had applied before the House Controller for fixing the fair rent at Rs. 47.00 per month which, in essence, was a prayer for enhancing the rent payable by the tenant from Rs. ... ... ... prefer an appeal in writing. It was contended that inasmuch as the petitioner had applied before the House Controller for fixing the fair rent at Rs. 47.00 per month which, in essence, was a prayer for enhancing the rent payable by the tenant from Rs. 39.14 to Rs 47.00 and, therefore its dismissal enured to the benefit of the tenant and he could not be called to be a person aggrieved by the order of the Controller. 5. Some argument was also addressed on behalf of the respondents that once an application under Sec. 5 for fixation of fair rent is filed before the House Controller, he was bound to hold some inquiry and could not dismiss the same for default. It is not necessary to record a concluded opinion on the above contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties and, in my opinion, the matter can be well disposed of on a different footing altogether. 6. A supplementary affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that the Bhagalpur Municipality had started a fresh proceeding for revision of the assessment according to the direction of this Court in the second appeal, after giving proper notice to the occupier (respondent No. 1), and in the said proceeding the annual valuation has been determined at Rs. 850.00 with effect from 1-4-1958. Copies of the notice of the proceeding issued upon the occupier and the final order of assessment have been marked as Annexures-4 and 5 respectively to the supplementary affidavit. This position has not been controverted on behalf of the respondents and Mr. S. K. Misra appearing for respondent No. 1 stated before us that no proceeding has been taken by respondent No. 1 in challenge of the said order of assessment. It is obvious, therefore, that this order has become final. 7. It was accordingly vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that the fair rent must be fixed on the basis of the revised assessment which is operative from 1-4-1958 and will be deemed of be in force on the date of the making of the application for fixation of fair rent by the petitioner and to conclude this long drawn proceeding without any further remand or the like, as the procedure for fixation of fair rent was obviously according to Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act, as already indicated earlier. 8. 8. In my opinion, there seems to be great force in this contention and the fair rent of the premises in question can be very well fixed on the basis of the new and revised assessment which admittedly is operative from a date prior to the date of the application under Sec. 5. This procedure was followed by this Court on earlier occasions also. In M. J. C. No. 561 of 1958 (Kailash Prasad Jhunjhunwala V/s. Commr. of Patna Division) disposed of on 25-3-1960 (Pat), the application for fixation of fair rent by the landlord was made prior to the amendment of Sec. 5 in the year 1955 in respect of the premises in occupation of the tenant, namely, Messrs. Nagarmal Bishwanath. The annual valuation in that case was also enhanced at the instance of the landlord and the fair rent was fixed according to the different valuations fixed in the successive assessments made or revised during the course of the pendency of the fair rent proceeding which remained pending for a period of about six years. When the matter came to this Court in the aforesaid proceeding after the revisional order of the Commissioner, Patna Division, this Court fixed the fair rent at Rs. 120.00 per month with effect from 12-12-1956, the date of the application for the revised assessment, and at the rate of Rs. 90.00 per month for the period prior to that, according to the old valuation. This Court again in Sharda Pd. Karamsheel V/s. Patna Municipal Corporation, (1964 BLJR 729) adopted a similar procedure and specifically held that in a single proceeding, different rates of fair rent for different periods may also be determined and fixed with respect to the premises in question in that case. 9. In this case, as I have said above, the revised Municipal assessment has come into force from a date prior to the date of the making of the application under Sec. 5 by the petitioner and which had come into operation during the existence of the proceeding and, therefore, there is no question of fixing different rates of fair rent for different periods. This proceeding is in a continuation of the fair rent proceeding itself and, therefore, I would fix the fair rent of the premises in question at Rs. 85/- per month on the basis of the annual valuation of Rs. This proceeding is in a continuation of the fair rent proceeding itself and, therefore, I would fix the fair rent of the premises in question at Rs. 85/- per month on the basis of the annual valuation of Rs. 850.00 determined by the Bhagalpur Municipality by its order contained in Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, with effect from 2-4-1958. 10. For the foregoing discussions I hold that the orders dated 30-10-1972 (Annexure-2) and 24-5-1973 (Annexure-3) passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively must be quashed and cancelled and the fair rent of the premises in question should be fixed at Rs. 85/- per month, as already indicated above. The application is, accordingly, allowed, but in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, I shall direct the parties to bear their own costs. S.K.CHOUDHURI, J. 11 I agree.