Judgment :- 1. The revision-petitioner landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent. The revision-petitioner contended that the annual rental value of the building fixed by the municipality was Rs. 150/ per mensem and therefore be wanted a proportionate increase in the rent. The contract rent was Rs. 44/- per mensem. The Rent Control Court fixed the rent at Rs. 135/ per mensem and the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed. The tenant filed a revision before the District Court, Trichur. The District Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority and the petition for fixing the fair rent was dismissed. This order is being challenged in this revision. 2. The revisional court interfered with the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the fair rent was fixed on the basis of Ext. Al which was for the period from 1971 to 1976. The District Court expressed the view that the fair rent should have been fixed only on the basis of the properly tax prevailing at the time of letting. The view taken by the District Court is erroneous. The building in question was let out to the tenant in 1116 M.E Admittedly there was no property tax register for this building pertaining to that period. Under S.5(2) of Act 2 of 1965 fair rent is to be fixed taking 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. Sub-s. (3) of S.5 says that 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. This Court in Imbichamu v. Imblchi Pathummabi (1975 KLT 138) held: "The sum and substance of the provision of S.5 is, the rent control court shall take into consideration all relevant facts including the rent on the basis of which the property tax or the house tax for the building prevailing at the time of letting was fixed (tax, as entered in the property tax register or house tax register of the local authority), as also the rent on the basis of which such property tax or house tax for the building prevailing two years immediately before the date of the application, was fixed. The provision only requires that it (fair rent) shall not exceed in any case by more than 15 per cent of the monthly rent on the basis of which property tax or house tax prevailing two years immediately before the date of the application was fixed. Having pointed out the maximum or the upper limit S.5 of the Act directs the Rent Control Court to consider not only the two factors made mention of therein but also all relevant considerations and materials that are placed before it. This is clear from Sub-s. (1) of S.5 which says that that court shall fix the fair rent." 3. The revisional court dismissed the application simply on the basis that the petitioner could not produce the property tax register prevailing at the time of letting. The court should have considered the other relevant circumstances for fixing the fair rent. That was how the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent. The revisional court should not have interfered with the finding of the appellate court. 4. The revisional court also went wrong in dismissing the application since the application for fixation of fair rent should have been disposed of on merits. Under S.5 of Act 2 of 1965 the Rent Control Court is bound on an application of a tenant or by landlord of a building to fix the fair rent for such building. The mandate of S.5 of the Act is to the effect that the rent control court shall fix the fair rent after taking into consideration all relevant circumstances. Dismissal of the fair rent application on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the extract of the building tax register is improper. 5. Therefore the impugned order is set aside. The mandate of S.5 of the Act is to the effect that the rent control court shall fix the fair rent after taking into consideration all relevant circumstances. Dismissal of the fair rent application on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the extract of the building tax register is improper. 5. Therefore the impugned order is set aside. The fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority seems to be proper and reasonable. The Appellate Authority had considered all relevant circumstances for fixing the fair rent. The order of the Appellate Authority is restored and the fair rent is fixed at Rs. 135/- per mensem. The tenant is liable to pay the rent at Rs. 135/- per mensem from the date of application. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. The parties to bear their costs. Allowed.