Judgment :- 1. C R.P. No. 1756/80 is by the landlord, and is directed against the order in R.C.R.P. 59/79 fixing the fair rent of the building in question as Rs. 115/- per mensem. And C.R.P. No 1885/80 is by the tenant who thinks that what is fixed is too high. 2. The building was originally a residential one. It was converted into a non-residential one by providing rolling shutters and the like, and was let out in February, 1973 on a rent of Rs. 200/- per mensem. As per Ext. Al property tax assessment register for the period 71-76, the annual rental value was Rs. 420/- only For the subsequent period (76-81). this was enhanced to Rs. 2400/, obviously on the basis that the agreed rent from February, 1973 was Rs. 200/- per mensem. 3. The controversy is whether Ext. Al could have been taken into account for fixation of fair rent under Sub-s. (2) of S.5, or whether the matter had to be dealt with under Sub-s. (3). Sub sections (1) to (3) of S.5 of Act 2/65 read: "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 enquiry 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 or house tax register of the local authority within whose area the building is situated. (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 or house tax register of the local authority within whose area the building is situated. Provided that in the case of (i) any residential building, 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 rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months preceding the letting." Counsel for the landlord contends that the words "at the time of letting" in sub-s. (2) are all-important, that the rental value in Ext. Al was fixed in 1971 and not with reference to the state of affairs in 1973 when alone the building was let out, and that in view of its conversion from a residential building into a non-residential one at that time, the property tax fixed in Ext. Al could not be considered as tax fixed at the time of letting. Al was fixed in 1971 and not with reference to the state of affairs in 1973 when alone the building was let out, and that in view of its conversion from a residential building into a non-residential one at that time, the property tax fixed in Ext. Al could not be considered as tax fixed at the time of letting. According to him, this was a case where no property tax at all had been fixed for the building "at the time of letting", as required by sub-s. (2), and therefore fair rent had to be fixed by the method suggested by sub-s. (3) i.e. by taking into account the prevailing rates of rent for similar buildings in the locality. 4. I am unable to accept this contention. What is to be taken into account under sub-s. (2) is the property tax fixed in the property tax register at the time of letting. That is, you have first to ascertain the time of letting and then look into the property tax register to find out how the tax liability in respect of the building stood, at that time. In other words, "tax fixed" in sub-s. (2) must refer to tax fixed in the property tax register; and "at the time of letting" must be related to the entries in the register as they stood at that time. In the present case, the building was let out in February, 1973 and the property tax liability of the landlord was the same as fixed for 1971; it remained unchanged till 1976. Therefore the entries in Ext. Al were relevant, and the provisions of sub-s. (3) were not. The circumstance that the building was converted from one type of accommodation to another during 1973 is not relevant, because the legislative mandate is to go by the local authority's register, and not by what the landlord might have done to the building at the time of letting S.6 of the Act will be attracted when "necessary addition, improvement or alteration" is carried out by the landlord, but that can only be in a case where the fair rent is initially fixed and the landlord seeks an increase on the basis of what he has subsequently done. The Section has no application to initial fixation of fair rent with reference to the state of affairs existing at the time of letting; what is relevant for such fixation is the tax fixed in the property register as it stood at the time of letting. 5. Counsel seeks support from the decision of Poti, J. (as he then was) in Narayana Pillai v. Thomas Kurian (1980 KLT. 846). No doubt the decision underlines the importance of the words "at the time of letting", but that was done only to steer clear of an earlier Full Bench decision in Kunhammed Keyi v. Premalatha (1962 KLT. 366) which had taken the view that the crucial point of time was the date of filing the fair rent application, and not the time of letting. That decision was rendered under Act 16/59 where the proviso to S.5 (2) was differently worded In my opinion, the following observations of Poti J in the decision relied on are really opposed to the landlord's claim:- "the owner is to be assessed to bouse tax or property tax on the value of the house or property to him, and not to the tenant. The tenant, if he is free to let it out, may perhaps realise a rent higher than what he is obliged to pay to the landlord. If he were to make another similar building he might have to pay a higher rent. The annual letting value of the building to the tenant may be higher than the annual letting value of the building to the landlord. It is,only the letting value to the landlord that is relevant and that should be the basis for fixing the property tax or house tax". Thus what is relevant is the annual letting value of the building to the landlord at the time of letting, and that is what the property tax register for the relevant period would disclose In the present case, such value for 1973 as per Ext. Al was Rs 420/-and that is the basis on which, subject to certain additions, that the revisional court has made the fixation. 6. The landlord's case that Ext. Al ought to have been ignored and that the fixation ought to have been made under S.5(3) cannot therefore succeed. Mr. Al was Rs 420/-and that is the basis on which, subject to certain additions, that the revisional court has made the fixation. 6. The landlord's case that Ext. Al ought to have been ignored and that the fixation ought to have been made under S.5(3) cannot therefore succeed. Mr. Augustine for the tenant fairly submitted that if the landlord's revision were to be dismissed, the tenant would not be interested in pressing his revision to insist on his pound of flesh. Both the revision petitions are therefore dismissed, but without any order as to costs.