P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THE revision by the petitioner is directed against the order dt. 14-7-1978, passed by the Rent Controller, Belgaum in No. DC/rnt/sr-4/1978 holding that the provisions relating to fixation of fair rent were not applicable to the case. ( 2 ) THE landlords filed an application under S. 21 (1) (j) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, against the present petitioner and obtained possession thereof for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction. The landlords accordingly recbnstructed the building after obtaining possession. Now the petitioner has taken possession of the premises. It appears that he executed a lease deed in favour of the landlords agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 300. However the petitioner feeling that the said rent of Rs. 300 was excessive, has filed the petition for fixation of fair rent, ( 3 ) THE opponents-landlord repudiated all the contentions of the petitioner. ( 4 ) SEC. 14 (9) of the Karnataka Rent control Act reads:"no tenant shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be liable to pay to his landlord for the occupation of any building any amount in excess of the fair rent of the building, unless such amount is a lawful increase of the fair rent in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "section 14 (10) reads:"subject to the provisions of subsection (9), any agreement for the payment of rent in excess of the) fair rent shall be null and void and shall be construed as if it were an agreement for the payment of the fair rent". In view of these two sub-sections, the so called agreement entered into by the petitioner agreeing to pay monthly rent at Rs. 300 will have to be struck down as null and void. ( 5 ) THE Rent Controller stated that after the landlords obtained possession on obtaining the decree under S. 21 (1) (j) of the Act, they had demolished the entire building and had put up a new building in its place and that therefore as Per S. 2 (2) of the Act, part-Ill will not be applicable at all. Proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 2 of the act says that the said part shall not apply to a building constructed after the first August 1957 for a period of five years from the date of construction of such building. Proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 2 of the act says that the said part shall not apply to a building constructed after the first August 1957 for a period of five years from the date of construction of such building. A plain reading would go to show that when a building altogether new has been constructed, then part-Ill will not be applicable, if an old building is demolished as per decree of the Court; obtained under S. 21 (1) (j) of the Act and a new building is put up in its place, then it cannot be said to be a new building constructed for the first time as envisaged by S. 2 (2 ). S. 27 of the Karnataka Rent Control act reads as:"where a decree for eviction has been passed by a Court on the ground specified in clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 and the work of demolishing the premises and of erection of a new building has been commenced by the landlord, the tenant may, within six months from the date on which he delivered vacant possession of the premises to the landlord give notice to the landlord of his intention to occupy the new building on its completion on the following conditions namely:- (a) that he shall pay to the landlord the fair rent in respect of the building". So S. 27 of the Act clearly speaks that tenant is liable to pay fair rent only after he occupies the newly constructed building put up in the place of the old building which was demolished as per the decree. S. 2 (2) and s. 27 of the Act will have to be read together in order to give a harmonious construction and meaning to the Act itself. Therefore, the view of the Rent controller, that part III is not applicable to the case on hand, is not correct. It has been held in Yellappa v. Yellappa (1 ). as follows :"in the context of the implementation of a decree for eviction under s. 21 (1) (j), it is obligatory that fair rent for the reconstructed building should be fixed. To such a situation, the exception made, under Section 2 (2) is not attracted, because the reconstruction was completed in 1972". Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Rent controller is set aside. The revision is allowed. To such a situation, the exception made, under Section 2 (2) is not attracted, because the reconstruction was completed in 1972". Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Rent controller is set aside. The revision is allowed. The matter is sent back to the Rent Controller, for disposal according to law. --- *** --- .