JUDGMENT - Kamat G.D., J.:—The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Fair Rent Tribunal, Panaji, dated 29th November, 1980 and of the Appellate Board, Panaji, dated 28th August, 1981. 2. The petitioner unfolds that he is the tenant of the southern half of the ground floor portion of the house bearing Registration No. 22764 of Book B 64 new and Matriz No. 93 situated at Panaji. He became the tenant of the father-in-law of the first respondent who was then its owner. The father-in-law of the first respondent had executed a rent note in favour of the petitioner on 29th December, 1958 on several terms and conditions material for the purposes in this case, on payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. 3. Sometime in the year 1973 the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller for depositing the monthly rents as there was a dispute among the heirs and legal representatives of the original landlord. The Rent Controller relying upon certain Court proceedings held that the whole house had been inherited by the respondent No. 1 and his wife. 4. The dispute having been settled, on 6th July, 1974, the first respondent instituted an application before the Fair Rent Tribunal, Panaji, for fixation of fair rent for the premises in the occupation of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 averred that the portion let out and in the possession of the petitioner comprised of 6 rooms, is situated on the main road, well ventilated and easily accessible. He further averred that the monthly rent prevailing as on 1st January, 1965 in the area is about Rs. 3/- per sq. metre and that at no time earlier fair rent had been fixed after its valuation. The petitioner filed his defence and the main thrust of the defence was that the rent could not be more than Rs. 10/- per month and that the very fact no valuation had been earlier sought, spoke in favour of the petitioner that in no case the rent could exceed Rs. 10/- per month. 5. It is common ground that the petitioner and the first respondent moved an application dated 20th January, 1975 before the Fair Rent Tribunal for appointment of a Commissioner pursuant to which a Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner submitted his report fixing Rs. 64/- per month to be the fair rent. 10/- per month. 5. It is common ground that the petitioner and the first respondent moved an application dated 20th January, 1975 before the Fair Rent Tribunal for appointment of a Commissioner pursuant to which a Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner submitted his report fixing Rs. 64/- per month to be the fair rent. A copy of this report is annexed at Exh. 'C' to the petition. The Fair Rent Tribunal on hearing the parties fixed the fair rent at Rs. 64/- per month from the date of the filing of the application by its judgment and order dated 29th November, 1980 under section 12 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, hereinafter called the 'Rent Control Act'. Aggrieved by the fixation of the said fair rent the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Board at Panaji. The petitioner did not succeed in this appeal, the District Board having confirmed the fair rent to be Rs. 64/- per month. 6. Although several grounds are raised in the petition, the petitioner before me submitted that he will confine himself to only one submission as set out in sub-para (v) of para 9 relating to the grounds taken in the petition. Shri U.S. Kolwalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner became a tenant of the premises in the year 1958 on payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and continued to pay the same rent even on the date of the filing of the application for fixation of fair rent. He says that as per proviso to section 12 of the Rent Control Act the fair rent cannot exceed Rs. 10/- per month as that was the rent paid by the petitioner on that date. He argues that section 12 of the Rent Control Act envisages three categories of premises. They being first all those buildings which are completed as on 1st January, 1965 and had never been let out prior to that date, second being those completed after 1st January, 1965 and the third category being premises which were completed prior to 1st January, 1965 and had been already rented. They being first all those buildings which are completed as on 1st January, 1965 and had never been let out prior to that date, second being those completed after 1st January, 1965 and the third category being premises which were completed prior to 1st January, 1965 and had been already rented. According to him premises completed as on 1st January, 1965 and not let out to the tenant prior to the said date, the fair rent in respect thereof could be in terms of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12 as the same is to be fixed taking into consideration what could be the rent payable as on 1st January, 1965. According to him there is no difficulty in fixing the fair rent in respect to the buildings completed after 1st January, 1965 as the fair rent payable would be the rent to be determined in terms of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12 as on the date on which the building or premises were completed. With regards to the third category he says that all those premises which are let out prior to 1st January, 1965 and which were naturally completed before that date whatever the rent paid in respect of such premises as on 1st January, 1965 would be the fair rent and proviso to section 12 must be so construed. The word 'payable' in the proviso be construed to mean what was the rent being actually paid as on 1st January, 1965. This interpretation, according to him, is fair and reasonable as the legislature intended to give protection to the tenant as against the increase of rents and this Statute is a beneficial legislation favouring the tenant. 7. Shri N.B. Sardesai, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, made various submissions opposing the petition. He first submits that the petitioner is not entitled to reliefs as prayed in the petition because the petition suffers from laches. This argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 does not bear much substance inasmuch as the petition is filed on 12th February, 1982, that is less than six months from the date of the last order impugned in the petition. This argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 does not bear much substance inasmuch as the petition is filed on 12th February, 1982, that is less than six months from the date of the last order impugned in the petition. He also submits that the petitioner agreed to the appointment of the Commissioner and the Commissioner having fixed the fair rent, the petitioner is bound by the fixation so made. However, this argument does not hold much water inasmuch as the matter involves interpretation of proviso to Section 12 of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, no acquiescence can be imported as against the petition. The last submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 is that the fair rent payable by any tenant in respect to the premises already completed and let out prior to 1st January, 1965 must be determined in terms of Diploma Legislative No. 1409 dated 14th February, 1952 which was in force as on that date. According to him the word 'payable' as occurring in the proviso to section 12 must be construed to mean what ought to be paid and not what was being paid or what was actually paid on 1st January, 1965. 8. The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 was brought into force in the territory of Goa, Daman and Diu as from 1st January, 1969. Before extension of this Act the tenancies in this territory were governed by Decree No. 43525 dated 7th March, 1961 and Legislative Diploma No. 1409 dated 14th February, 1952. Section 59 of the Rent Control Act which deals with repeals and savings says that from the date on which the Rent Control Act is brought into force in any local area, the provisions of Decree No. 43525 and Legislature Diploma No. 1409 and the corresponding provisions of any other law for the time being in force stand repealed in that area. Section 12 of the Rent Control Act reads:– “Rent Tribunal to determine fair rent.—(1) The Rent Tribunal shall on application by the landlord or the tenant of a building, fix the fair rent payable per annum for such building after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed. Section 12 of the Rent Control Act reads:– “Rent Tribunal to determine fair rent.—(1) The Rent Tribunal shall on application by the landlord or the tenant of a building, fix the fair rent payable per annum for such building after holding such inquiry as may be prescribed. (2) The fair rent payable per annum shall consist of – (a) seven and a half per cent of the market value of the building (including the land on which the building is constructed) as on the 1st of January, 1965, or the date of the completion of the building, whichever is later; and (b) fifty per cent of the taxes or cesses levied by the local authority and payable per annum by the landlord in respect of the building including the land on which the building is constructed: Provided that where the building has been let out for the first time previous to the 1st January, 1965, the fair rent shall not exceed the rent payable in respect of such building on that date.” I agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there are three categories of the premises visualized in section 12. Admittedly we are concerned with a case where premises are completed long before 1st January, 1965 and let out prior to that date and, therefore, the premises occupied by the petitioner are covered by the proviso to Section 12. The controversy between the parties solely arises on the construction and interpretation of the word 'payable' as used in the proviso to that section. The shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word 'payable' to be 'of a sum of money, a bill, etc. that is to be paid; due; falling due.' The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'payable' to be 'that must be paid, due; that may be paid'. 9. The word 'payable' figures in section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. This word came for scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram and another)1, as reported in 1976(3) S.C.C. 407 . In that case New Delhi Municipal Committee were trying to recover money from Kalu who was permitted by the said Municipal Committee to put up a stall on the Irwin Road. For a long time no recovery of monies had been done. In that case New Delhi Municipal Committee were trying to recover money from Kalu who was permitted by the said Municipal Committee to put up a stall on the Irwin Road. For a long time no recovery of monies had been done. In fact no recovery was sought from May, 1950 till about April, 1957. The recovery for the first time was sought to be made by the order of the Estate Officer only in September 1961. The Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi having rejected the claim of the Municipal Committee an appeal was preferred before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Municipal Committee and held that the word 'payable' means that which should be paid and it further held that the word 'payable' must be construed to be also what is legally recoverable. Although this authority does not directly lend support to the present case yet the interpretation and the meaning given to the word 'payable' is relevant for our purposes. The word 'payable' also came for construction before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in (Chand Rani v. Chaitram Mukhi)2, reported in A.I.R. 1954 Allahabad 108. The word 'payable' as occurring in section 5(4) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was interpreted by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court to be the rent which a tenant claims to be payable and not the rent which is the agreed rent. 10. Construing this word 'payable' as contained in Proviso to section 12 of the Rent Control Act, I am unable to accept the interpretation sought to be given by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the said word means what was being paid or what is actually being paid. The word 'payable' is used on three occasions in section 12. The proviso will have to be read in the context of the whole section. Therefore, the only construction and interpretation possible for the word 'payable' is what ought to be paid or what should be paid. There is another aspect in favour of interpreting the word 'payable' as I interpret it because if the Legislature wanted to given protection to the tenant of paying the rent what was being paid as on 1st January, 1965 the proviso could have used some other language instead of the word 'payable'. There is another aspect in favour of interpreting the word 'payable' as I interpret it because if the Legislature wanted to given protection to the tenant of paying the rent what was being paid as on 1st January, 1965 the proviso could have used some other language instead of the word 'payable'. It could be conceived that had the Legislature meant otherwise the proviso could have been “the fair rent shall not exceed the rent at which the premises were let out” or something like that. 11. Section 12 of the Rent Control Act relates to the fixation of fair rent. Fair rent refers to the premises and not to the contracting parties. The fair rent of the premises is to be determined and in the context in which the word 'payable' has been used in the proviso, it is clear that what was intended thereby is to fix the fair rent of the premises as on 1st January, 1965 and not on the basis of what was being actually paid as per the contract of the parties. 12. Having construed and given meaning to the word 'payable' in the proviso now the question remains as to how the fair rent is to be determined. The answer would be that the rent payable as on 1st January, 1965 would have to be fixed in terms of the Legislative Diploma No. 1049. Under the said Legislative Diploma 1409 an application was required to be made either by the tenant or by the landlord to the Head of Taluka Revenue Office. He would then call upon the parties to appoint their experts and if parties mutually agree to appoint a common expert and himself appoint one, such experts/expert would then give a report. The Head of Taluka Revenue Office thereafter would fix the fair rent. In view of the repeal of the said Legislative Diploma an application would lie to the Fair Rent Tribunal under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act once the said Act came into force. 13. In the case before me, the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 had agreed before the Fair Rent Tribunal for appointment of Eng. Jose F.F. de Albuquerque to be the Commissioner. The said Commissioner gave a report and accordingly fixed Rs. 64/- to be rent of the premises as on 1st January, 1965. 14. 13. In the case before me, the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 had agreed before the Fair Rent Tribunal for appointment of Eng. Jose F.F. de Albuquerque to be the Commissioner. The said Commissioner gave a report and accordingly fixed Rs. 64/- to be rent of the premises as on 1st January, 1965. 14. According to the report the premises consist of floor area of 97.75 sq. metres plus annexure of 12 sq. metres used as a bath-room. The report states that the valuation has been made on the basis of reproduction value which is admittedly one of the accepted modes of valuation of buildings. No doubt it can be argued that the Commissioner has determined the rent on the basis of 7½ % of the market value of the building and the land for arriving at what the fair rent would be. The said Legislative Diploma does not specifically by itself set out the principles on which the rent could be fixed. The Commissioner having fixed the fair rent on the basis of 7½% of the market value of the building and land and taking into consideration other principles which are accepted in the matter of valuation of building, there is no infirmity whatsoever in accepting the said valuation and fixation of the fair rent. 15. The Fair Rent Tribunal passed an order accepting the Commissioner's report fixing the fair rent at Rs. 64/- per month which is the fair rent payable by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 as on 1st January, 1965. 16. In the premises the petition fails. 17. Rule discharged. 18. No order as to costs.