JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---Parties by Counsel, Rule heard forthwith. The respondent landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Clause 4 and 5 of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). The learned Rent Controlled by his order dated 30-10-1980 fixed the fair rent of the suit premises in accordance with his order. In the appeal preferred by the landlord, the fair rent was enhanced by the appellate authority. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner tenant has preferred the instant with petition. 2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Omprakash v. Fattelal)2, 1986 Mh.L.J. 414 has struck down the Clauses 6, 7 and 7-A of the Rent Control Order on the ground that they are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After this judgment was delivered, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Puranik. J.) In Writ Petition No. 1701 of 1981 decided on 20-3-1936 (Purushottamdas v. Anant)2 set aside the order impugned before him relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench declaring Clauses 6, 7 and 7-A of the Rent Control Order as unconstitutional. On the basis of the above judgment, it is urged before me on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the orders of the Rent Control Authorities impugned by the petitioner are liable to be set aside. In fact, the submission is that the application of the respondent landlord for fixation of fair rent itself is liable to be dismissed. 3. In my view although the guidelines for determination of fair rent are provided in Clauses 6, 7 and 7-A of the Rent Control Order, the application filed by the respondent landlord cannot be thrown out on the ground that the said provisions are declared unconstitutional. The application filed for fair rent is filed before the Rent Controller by the landlord or the tenant under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order. Clause 4 confers jurisdiction upon the Rent Controller to determine whether the rent of any house within his jurisdiction is in sufficient or excessive. Clause 5 then provides that if on consideration of all the circumstances of the case the Rent Controller finds that the rent of the house is insufficient or excessive, he can determine the fair rent, to be charged for the house. Clause 5 then provides that if on consideration of all the circumstances of the case the Rent Controller finds that the rent of the house is insufficient or excessive, he can determine the fair rent, to be charged for the house. Since the validity of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order was not impugned and since the said clauses were not struck down by the Division Bench in the judgment cited, supra they still exist in the statute book and can be availed of by the landlord or the tenant. Hence, the application filed thereunder in the instant case would be maintainable and even though the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the ground that they were passed on the basis of the guidelines laid down in Clauses 6, 7 and 7-A of the Rent Control Order which were declared unconstitutional the matter will have to be remanded for a fresh decision according to law. 4. The question which, however needs consideration is whether Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order can stand pro prio vigore i.e. Independently of Clauses 6, 7 and 7-A of the Rent Control Order which provides guidelines for fixation of fair rent or must fall with the said provisions when they are struck down as unconstitutional. In my view, Clauses 4 and 5 present an integrated scheme for determination of fair rent. Clause 4 provides for a preliminary determination of the question whether the rent of the house is insufficient or excessive. Clause 5 shows that the above preliminary finding is a pre-condition for fixation of fair rent to be charged for the house. The crucial provision for fixation of fair rent is thus Clause 5. On perusal of Clause 5 it appears that the Rent Controller has to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case including any amount paid (before the 1st December, 1952) by the tenant by way of premium or any other like amount in addition to rent in determining the question whether the rent of the house is insufficient or excessive. However, it appears from the said provisions that no criteria definite or otherwise is laid down therein for fixation of fair rent of the house. 5. However, it appears from the said provisions that no criteria definite or otherwise is laid down therein for fixation of fair rent of the house. 5. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether in the absence of any criteria Clause 5 is unworkable for determining the fair rent of the house. In answering the above question it must be seen that a proceeding for fixation of fair rent of the house under clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order is a judicial or at any rate a quasi judicial proceeding. A duty is, therefore, cast upon the Rent Controller to act judicially in determining the fair rent of the house which is clear from the fact that his order is appealable under Clause 21(1) of the Rent Control Order. He, therefore, cannot act arbitrarily in the said proceeding because of arbitrariness is a sine qua non of a judicial determination which must be judicious. Therefore, in determining fair rent even though no criteria are laid down for determination of fair rent under Clause 5, the Rent Controller has to act upon the basis of certain principles, considerations or criteria relevant to the purpose of determination of fair rent of the house. It may be seen that for determining the question whether the rent of the house is insufficient or excessive, no definite or specific criteria is fixed but what Clause 5 states is that it should be done after taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration. It may also be seen that some of the circumstances for determining whether the existing rent of the house is insufficient or excessive and for determining what the fair rent of the house should be may common or overlapping. 6. Without being exhaustive, some of the circumstances or criteria which may be required to be taken into consideration, can be indicated as follows: The condition and the age of the house, quality of its construction; length of the tenancy and in particular since when the rent is not revised; prevailing rates and rent for the same or similar house in the same local area and also the circumstances such as whether by exercising pressure or taking advantage of the difficulties or the urgent needs of the tenant higher rent is charged or any premium or additional sums from him is sought to be taken. It, however, needs to be emphasised that the Rent Control Order is a place of social legislation and, therefore, while fixing the fair rent, its object and purpose must be kept in mind. The fair rent must be fair to both the landlord and the tenant. In other words, the rent must be fixed in such a manner that there is no exploitation of either the landlord or the tenant. 7. Ordinarily, where the principles for adjudication are not laid down in the statutes, the Courts follow the principles of common law or the principles of justice, equity and good conscience in adjudication. The same principles need to be borne in mind by the Rent Controller in judicially determining the fair rent of the house under Clause 5 of the Rent Control Order. It must be seen that it is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective (see Sutherland's Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Articles 5401 and 5402). Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition at page 350 has expressed: "...Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution. Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoqe concessa esse vindentur sine quibue jurisdictio explicari non potuit." 8. I, therefore, hold that the Rent Controller is competent to decide the application for fixation of fair rent under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Rent Control Order even though Clauses 6,7 and 7-A are struck down by this Court. However, since the impugned orders are passed after taking into consideration, the guidelines laid down in the above clauses which are struck down, the said orders must be set aside and the proceedings must be remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision according to law. 9. The Impugned orders of the Rent Control Authorities are thus set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision according to law in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No order as to costs in this petition. The parties to appear before the Rent Controller on 22-8-1986. The Rent Controller is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. Order accordingly. -----