Short Note : 1. The present respondent filed an application under section 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhind, with the allegations that the defendant is a tenant in a shop which belongs to the plaintiff, that shop is situated in front of City Post Office, Bhind. The shop was taken on rent on 1-8-1954 at Rs. 10/- per month. The shop is in a good condition. On 30-8-1949, the shop was fetching Rs. 15/- per month and on 1-1948, the shop could have fetched Rs. 15/- per month and if the increase allowed by the law is added to this amount, then the standard rent will come to Rs. 25.50 per month to which the plaintiff is entitled. The plaint was amended and it was added that the present shop is in a good locality on the main road in business locality and the other shops also fetch about Rs. 25.50 per month. Therefore, under section 10 of the Act also, after taxing into consideration all these facts, the rent be fixed as asked for. This application was filed on 28-4-1969. All these allegations were denied by the defendant. 2. After taking evidence, the Rent Controlling Authority fixed the rent under section 10 of the Act at Rs. 17/- per month and it ordered that this rent will be recovered from the date of order which is dated 17-9-1970. Against this, both the parties went in appeal before the Additional District Judge. It dismissed the appeal of the defendant, but it made variation in the appeal of the plaintiff to the extent that the rent will be recovered from 28-4-1969, i.e. from the date on which the application was filed. Against this, the present appeal has been filed. Held : Under section 10 of the Act, the locality, the condition of the shop, the condition of business in that particular area-all these things are to be considered and then rent is to be fixed. The learned Rent Controlling Authority has taken into consideration all these factors and then it has fixed the standard rent. 3. The second submission before me by the learned counsel was that the appellate Court was wrong in changing the date of fixation of standard rent which will be recoverable from 17-9-1970 to 28-4-1969. I think this submission has also no force. 3. The second submission before me by the learned counsel was that the appellate Court was wrong in changing the date of fixation of standard rent which will be recoverable from 17-9-1970 to 28-4-1969. I think this submission has also no force. Section 10 of the Act itself, in Proviso, gives the limit from what date such rent is to be fixed and following that Proviso, the appellate Court has fixed the date. It seems, the Rent Controlling Authority lost the sight of this Proviso and fixed the date from the date of judgment. Therefore, the second submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Appeal dismissed.