Short Note : 1. This is a second appeal (registered as Miscellaneous Appeal) under section 32 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') and is directed against an appellate order passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Indore under section 31 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: The appellant is a tenant in the suit accommodation of which the respondent is the landlord. An application under section 10 read with section 7 of the Act was made by the appellant before the learned Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) for fixation of the standard rent of the suit accommodation. It was alleged in this application that since more than eight years, the appellant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.18/-, that in the year 1960 the municipal assessment of the suit accommodation was on the basis of a monthly rent of Rs.12/- only, that in the year 1970 some additions alterations and repairs were carried out in the suit accommodation and thereafter the respondent obtained an agreement from the appellant for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.85/- per month; that in accordance with the provisions of sections 7 and 10 of the Act, the respondent could claim monthly rent of Rs.12/- with an increase of 15% and that the rent charged by the respondent was in excess of the standard rent permissible under the Act. Held : In the instant case, there is evidence that the suit accommodation, before its additions, alteration and repairs, was assessed to municipal assessment in the year 1960 but the accommodation as it was on the date of the application was assessed only in the year 1970. There is no mention in the aforesaid provision as to which assessment is to be taken into consideration. If on account of the non-applicability of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 7 of the Act, standard rent has to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act and the municipal assessment is the basis but this sub-section does not specify which assessment is to be taken into consideration, if there has been more than one assessment before the application is made by the tenant for determination of the standard rent. Ordinarily, in my opinion, the municipal assessment current at the time when the application is made, should be the basis for determination of the standard rent, under section 7 (3) of the Act. It was admitted that the accommodation was assessed to municipal assessment on the basis of a monthly rent of Rs.70/- when the appellant filed the present application. If that is taken as the basis, the standard rent would be higher than that fixed by the learned Authority and confirmed in appeal by the appellate Court also as the landlord has not appealed against the order under appeal this question need not be decided. In the opinion of the learned lower appellate Court, as municipal assessment could not be the basis for fixation of standard rent under section 7(3) of the Act, the only provision under which standard rent could be fixed was sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Act, according to which, when for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set forth under section 7 of the Act, the Authority may fix reasonable rent having regard to the factors mentioned in that sub-section. In my opinion, in view of the fact, provisions of sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act do not specify as to which assessment is to be taken as the basis. There was no option left but to determine the standard rent under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Act. 3. Both the learned Authority as well as the learned lower appellate Court have taken the view that in accordance with the provisions of section 10 (4) of the Act the reasonable rent of the suit accommodation would be Rs.65/-. Nothing could be urged on behalf of the appellant to take a view different from this view. In any event, this is a finding of fact and is not liable to be interfered with under section 32 of the Act by this Court. Appeal dismissed.