ORDER.-These two civil revision petitions arise out of the proceedings initiated by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 290 of 1968 in the Court of the learned Rent Controller-cum-First Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town for fixing the fair rent for the building bearing door No. 57 in Madurai Town, Ward No. 18, South Avani Moola Street, which is in the occupation of the respondent as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 125. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application in part and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 205 per annum. Against that order of the learned Rent Controller the landlord filed C.M.A. No. 355 of 1970 for enhancement of the fair rent and the tenant filed C.M.A. No. 344 of 1970 for setting aside the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent. The appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and the anneal filed by the landlord was dismissed and hence these two revision petitions have been filed. 2. The petition by the landlord for fixing the fair rent was filed under section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), rules 12 and 14 were framed under that Act laying down guidelines for fixing the fair rent. In K. C. Nambiar v. IV Judge of the Court of Small Causes1the Supreme Court struck down rule 12 and in doing so observed as follows: " The Legislature has used in sub-section (3) (b) (i) the expression ‘cost of construction’ and in sub-section (3) (b) (ii) ‘market value’. It is difficult to accept that the Legislature has used two different expressions for providing that the market value of the building and market value of the site shall form components of the total cost of buildings. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edn., at page 415 — ‘Cost’ it is stated ‘means the amount originally expended in performing a particular act or operation, or for production or construction, as of a building. ‘There is, not infrequently great difference between the cost of an article and the value of an article. Cost of an article in terms of money is what the owner has expended to obtain it; the value of the article is ordinarily its market value in a market actual or hypothetical. It may be conceded that the expression ‘cost’ is sometimes used as meaning the value of an article. Cost of an article in terms of money is what the owner has expended to obtain it; the value of the article is ordinarily its market value in a market actual or hypothetical. It may be conceded that the expression ‘cost’ is sometimes used as meaning the value of an article. But the expression ‘cost of construction’ in sub-section (3) (b) (i) for determining the first component when used in juxtaposition with the expression ‘market value’ in sub-section 3 (b) (ii) is, in our judgment, used to denote not the market value but the cost of the original construction. There are inherent indications in clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (3) (b) which go to prove that the expression ‘cost of construction’ was not intended to mean the market value. The expression ‘cost of building’ includes not only the expenses incurred for construction of the building but also the value of advantages which the site of the building offers, such as, accessibility to markets, nearness to a railway station, special amenities, and features, of architectural interest. If the expression ‘cost of construction’ is equated with the ‘market value’, it would necessarily include the special advantages of its situation, amenities and its architectural features. But the Legislature has provided for including in the cost of the building apart from the cost of construction, the value of allowances for favourable situation, amenities and architectural features..‘‘ 3. Amenities such as air-conditioning, lifts, electric fans, tubelights, number of electric points, fans, ventilators, electric pump for water, flush-outs, fixed wash basins, stair cases, outhouses, cattle-sheds, garden or vacant ground appurtenant to the building enjoyed by the tenant and usufructs of trees, if any, enjoyed by the tenant will also be included in the cost of the building as allowances. But many of these amenities would be taken into account in determining the market value of the building. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State of Madras was unable to explain why the Legislature in the determination of the cost of building for arriving at the fair rent, if the view expressed by the High Court, is correct, enacted that these allowances should be included twice once as part of component (i) and again as part of component (iii). 4. 4. The learned trial Judge has rightly pointed out that in determining the cost of construction, if the contention of the State be accepted in determining the first component of the cost of building it will be the cost of reproducing the building at a given time reduced by the depreciation computed on the life of the building, a process which reverses the normal method of making allowances for depreciation. Again, if the meaning of the expression ‘cost of construction’ were ‘market value’ it would mean that the market value having regard to the market conditions of real property may go on changing year after year. But the State has accepted by rule 12 that the cost of construction is a fixed quantity related to the date on which the Act was brought into force. Therefore by prescribing the rate at which the cost of construction is to be determined under rule 12, the expression ‘cost of construction’ is neither the original cost, nor the value of the building at a given time during the life of the Act, but an artificial value related to the assumed cost of construction on the date on which the Act was enacted. 5. Thereafter the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order dismissing the petition and ordered the Rent Controller to determine the fair rent according to the provisions of the Act uninfluenced by rule 12. 6. Subsequently rule 14 was struck down by this Court in P.M. Raval and others v. K.G. Ramachandran and M. Venkatachalam v. Seth Kishanchand Mahbhubani and others1Section 4 of the Principal Act was amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973. The learned Rent Controller applied the provisions of the Act as amended even before the amendment came into force and without referring to the provisions of the sections specifically. But by reason of section 27 of the amending Act every proceeding relating to the fixation of fair rent pending before the Rent Controller or any authority on the date of the coming into force of the amending Act has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. But by reason of section 27 of the amending Act every proceeding relating to the fixation of fair rent pending before the Rent Controller or any authority on the date of the coming into force of the amending Act has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. As there are no guidelines in the principal Act after rules 12 and 14 were struck down as stated above, the order passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent on the basis of what is called by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as commonsense “ and what is conceded to be a procedure laid down in section 4 as amended, cannot be sustained. As observed by N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Viswanathan v. Subbarajulu2: ”The fair rent petition has necessarily to fail because rules 12 and 14 of the Rules have been struck down.... So under section 4 as it originally stood before the Amending Act came into force, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to fix fair rent." In rejecting a suggestion by the landlord that the orders passed by the Courts below may be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal, N.S. Ramaswami, J, has observed: "But that cannot be done. Under section 27 of the Amending Act, every proceedings relating to the fixation of fair rent pending before the Rent Controller or any authority on the date of coming into force of this Act shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act. In other words, the provisions of the Amending Act and the Rules now made after the amendment have no application to proceedings started under the provisions of the principal Act. The only remedy is to file a fresh petition." With great respect, I agree with the learned Judge. Therefore these two revision petitions are dismissed and the landlord is given liberty to file a fresh petition for fixing the fair rent in accordance with the provisions of section 4 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973. (There will be no order as to costs.