H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Revision Petition directed against the order dated 4-4-1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Belgaum, in dc. RNT SR. 8/82-83 fixing the fair rent of the petition premises at Rs. 250/- per month. ( 2 ) THIS order of the Rent Controller is challenged mainly on the ground that the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller is unfair for the reason that it is in contravention of Sec, 14 (4) (i) of the Karnataka rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). According to the petitioner, since the premises in question came into existence prior to April 1947 which fact cannot be disputed in the light of the documents produced by the tenant himself through rental receipts, there cannot be an increase exceeding 25% of the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act since the old rent all along paid does not exceed Rs. 50/- per month, which fact also is not disputed. In the instant case, the Rent Controller has fixed the rent at Rs. 250/- per month. This, according to the petitioner, is an infraction of the provision of law referred to earlier. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that even assuming that the said provision of law is attracted to the facts of the case, the increase of tax or cess payable in respect of the premises to the local authority should also be taken into consideration. ( 4 ) IT is necessary to refer to Section 14 (4) (i) of the Act which reads as follows:"in fixing the fair rent of a residential building the Controller may allow- if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-section (3) does not exceed fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding twenty-five per cent on such tate or rental value. "according to this clause of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, Rent controller should have due regard to the rental value or the rate of rent which, in the instant case, did not exceed Rs. 50/- per mensem and should have increased the rent only to the extent of 25% on such rate of rent or rental value. "according to this clause of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, Rent controller should have due regard to the rental value or the rate of rent which, in the instant case, did not exceed Rs. 50/- per mensem and should have increased the rent only to the extent of 25% on such rate of rent or rental value. The petition for fixation of fair rent is in respect of residential premises and the admitted rent per month is Rs. 50/. Most importantly the premises came into existence prior to april 1947. Thus, all the requirements of law under Sec. 14 (4) (i) of the Act have been satisfied and, in such a circumstance, the only course open to the Rent controller was to fix the rent at Rs. 62-50 per month and not Rs. 250/- per month. ( 5 ) IN the facts and circumstances, which are beyond controversy, the Rent controller was not justified in adopting a guideline of his own which is extraneous to the provisions of the Act which regulate the fixation of fair rent. In this case, clearly there is virtual disregard of the provision of law and a patent substitution of unguided discretion and unjustified guideline of his own on the part of the rent Controller in fixing what is supposed to be a fair rent. In short, the impugned order could be characterised as a classic example of unfair rent. ( 6 ) A contention has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since there has been an increase of tax payable by the landlady in respect of the premises to the local authority, is entitled to claim a proportionate increase in the rent payable for the premises. There is no sufficient material before this court and this issue was not considered by the Rent Controller when the fair rent of the premises was fixed. The question of increase of rent on the ground of increase in the rate of tax payable by the landlady in respect of the premises to a local authority is a question of fact and also a matter of evidence. It may be redundant to mention that such an increase is governed by the provisions of section 17 of the Act. It may be redundant to mention that such an increase is governed by the provisions of section 17 of the Act. It is open to the respondent-landlady to take such steps which are appropriate in accordance with the provisions of law for claiming increase in rent by virtue of increase in tax payable on the premises with effect from the relevant point of time before the Rent Controller. However, I would like to add that, in this Revision Petition, the scope of the revision does not permit a decision on this issue which was not raised before the Rent Controller. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is allowed in part. The fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 250/- per month under the impugned order is modified and the fair rent is fixed at Rs. 62-50 per month in respect of the premises in question with effect from the date of filing of the fair rent petition. Parties to bear their own costs. Revision petition allowed. --- *** --- .