H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) SMT. T. N. Manjuladevi, learned Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondent 1. ( 2 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by an allottee of the premises in question belonging to respondent 2 who is the landlord. When the premises was allotted to the petitioner by the Rent Controller, the notified rent was fixed at Rs. 400/- per month. However, on appeal preferred by the landlord before respondent 1, the appellate authority enhanced the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 550/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved. ( 3 ) THE short point for consideration is whether respondent 1 has the jurisdiction to enhance the notified rent fixed by the Rent Controller in accordance with S. 8 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 4 ) THE undisputed fact is that Rs. 400/- which was fixed as the rent payable per month by virtue of the order of the Rent Controller, was the rent that was being paid by the previous tenant. At best, this may be characterised as notified rent. Notified rent obviously is different from fair rent. Fair rent is the rent to be fixed by the Rent Controller on an application made under S. 14 of the Act based on the norms provided under the Act itself after an enquiry. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, power is not reserved to respondent 1 to vary or enhance the notified rent based on other considerations which, in the instant case, have gone into the enhancement at the hands of the appellate authority. Considerations which are extraneous to those that are provided expressly under the provisions of S. 14 read with sub-sec. (4) of S. 14 of the Act, cannot be imported. In the instant case, the appellate authority has exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in it and, therefore, I hold that the impugned order of the appellate authority, in so far as it relates to the ennancement of rent is concerned, is unsupportable and illegal. (4) of S. 14 of the Act, cannot be imported. In the instant case, the appellate authority has exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in it and, therefore, I hold that the impugned order of the appellate authority, in so far as it relates to the ennancement of rent is concerned, is unsupportable and illegal. However, I may observe that it is open to the aggrieved person who desires to have a fair rent to seek necessary relief under S. 14 of the Act for fixation of fair rent and, till such time, it is the rent fixed by the rent Controller that is revoverable from the tenant by the landlord, the rent being Rs. 400/- per month. ( 6 ) IN the result, for the foregoing reasons, rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent 1 dt. 30-6-1984 in so far as it relates to the enhancement of rent from Rs. 400/-to Rs. 550/-per month is concerned is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the petitioner is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month throughout. ( 7 ) SMT. T. N. Manjuladevi, learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from today. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .