PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE second submission made on behalf of the petitioners is with regard to the permitted increase awarded by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has dealt with the question under point No. 4 at page 12 of the certified copy of the judgment, thus :"regarding the house tax and municipal tax and education cess, it is true that it is not mentioned in the rent note that the taxes are to be paid by the tenant. However, it should be borne in mind that the education cess is recoverable by the landlord from the tenant and it is the statutory liability of the tenant to pay the cess for the property which is let to him. . . . Moreover, the taxes can be recovered by the landlord from the tenant as permitted increases. " ( 2 ) NOW insofar as 50% of the education cess amounting to Rs. 787. 20 is concerned, there is no grievance made on behalf of the petitioners and, therefore, that point is not in dispute. What is in dispute is with regard to the amount of house tax in the sum of Rs. 985. 50 awarded by way of permitted increases by the appellate Court. In this connection Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the respondents drew my attention to the provision contained in Sec. 10 of the Act which reads as under :"10. Where a landlord is required to pay to a local authority in respect of any premises any rate, cess or tax imposed or levied for the purposes of such authority he shall be entitled to make an increase in the rent of the premises by an amount not exceeding the increase paid by him (by way of such rate, cess or tax over the amount paid) in the period of assessment which included the date of the coming into operation of this Act (or the date on which the premises were first let, whichever is later,) and such increase in rent shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of See. 7. "by pressing into service the aforesaid provision of the Act, Mr. Shah submitted that the finding of the appellate Court stands supported by the provision of law as reproduced above. 7. "by pressing into service the aforesaid provision of the Act, Mr. Shah submitted that the finding of the appellate Court stands supported by the provision of law as reproduced above. He further submitted that on the date of the rent note which was the first day of letting the tenant-petitioner No. 1 was not saddled with the liability to pay the house tax. According to him while fixing the standard rent, the Court was justified in considering the right of the landlord to claim permitted increases. While considering the above referred provision, it has to be borne in mind that the rent control legislation is beneficial to the tenants and restrictive of the rights of the landlord. One of the restrictions on the rights of the landlord is as contained in Sec. 7 of the Act. By virtue of this provision it would be unlawful for the landlord to charge rent higher than the standard rent. The scheme of the Act then is to see that the landlord is not penalised by making provision for certain contingencies. Therefore, the legislature thought it fit to make appropriate provisions for conferring some rights to the landlord for enabling the landlord to claim some increase over the standard rent. Section 10 of the Act is one of such provisions. It has, therefore, to be seen as to what extent the landlord is permitted to make an increase. That can be seen from the usage of the word "he shall be entitled to make an increase in the rent of the premises by an amount not exceeding the increase paid by him by way of such rate, cess or tax over the amount paid in the period of assessment which included the date of the coming into operation of this act or the date on which the premises were first let, whichever is later x x x x " (Emphasis supplied ). Bearing in mind the landlords entitlement referred to in the aforesaid provision, it is clear that what is permitted is the increase in any rate, cess or tax imposed or levied for the purposes of a local authority subsequent to the first date of letting in so far as the present case is concerned. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Bearing in mind the landlords entitlement referred to in the aforesaid provision, it is clear that what is permitted is the increase in any rate, cess or tax imposed or levied for the purposes of a local authority subsequent to the first date of letting in so far as the present case is concerned. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Shah to the effect that the landlord would be entitled to the whole of the tax irrespective of whether the tax was imposed at or before the date of the first letting cannot be accepted. The landlord would be entitled to an increase over the tax which was in existence when the premises was first let. Therefore, for the purpose of getting permitted increase within the scope of Sec. 10 of the Act, the landlord has to show what was the tax which was imposed on or before the first day of letting and what has been the subsequent increase, (i. e. , increase subsequent to first day of letting) in the rate or levy or tax or cess by the local authority or for the benefit of local authority. Revision partly allowed. .