Judgment :- On the application filed by the first respondent the Land Tribunal fixed quantum of rent payable by the revision petitioner as Rs.75/- per month from January, 1985. Admittedly revision petitioner is holding the property as a commercial lessee. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Land reforms). 2. Contention of the revision petitioner is that the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority went wrong in fixing the rent solely on the basis of the market value of the property in the locality. The short point that arises for consideration is whether it was competent to the authorities below to enhance the contract rent on the basis of the prevailing market value of the land in the locality. 3. S.106(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act empowers the Land Tribunal on the motion of the lessor or lessee in the case of a commercial or industrial lease to vary the contract rent. S.106(1) provides that a lessee of a property let out for commercial or industrial purpose shall not be liable to be evicted from such land but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy and such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years. S.106(1A) mandates the authority to take into consideration such matters as may be prescribed to vary the contract rent. Rule 142(1) of the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules enables the lessor or lessee to file application after the expiry of twelve years from the date of the contract of tenancy or the date of refixation of rent forvariation of the contract rent. Rule 142(2) envisages notice on such application to the opposite party. Land Tribunal is directed to make enquiry before passing the order on the application. Rule 142(3) provides that the Land Tribunal shall have regard to the rates of rent prevailing in the locality in respect of lands used for similar purposes. 4. Contention of the revision petitioner is that Rule 142(3) makes the position clear that the Land Tribunal has only to take into consideration the rates of rent prevailing in the locality for varying the contract rent and as no other guideline is indicated to be considered by the Land Tribunal it could not have varied the rent on the basis of the market value of the properties in the locality. When Rule 142(3) prescribes only the rates of rent prevailing in the locality to be considered by the Land Tribunal, it could not have overlooked it and fixed the rate of rent on the basis of market value of properties prevailing in the locality 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent relying on Gopalakrishna Kurup v. Narayana Ayyan (1980 K.L.T. 852) contended that there is nothing wrong in the Land Tribunal taking into account the market value of the properties in the locality. In the above decision there was evidence with regard to the prevailing rates of rennin the locality. This Court in the above decision held that there is nothing wrong in the Land Tribunal taking into account the market value of the properties in the locality and also the rent that is being fetched by properties which are used for industrial or commercial purposes. The above case does not have any application to the case in hand as there is no evidence with regard to the rates of rent prevailing in the locality. 6. As Rule 142(3) envisages only the consideration of rates of rent prevailing in the locality for varying the rent, the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority were not justified in enhancing the rent solely on the basis of the increase in the land value in the locality. In an application filed under S.106(1A) the Land Tribunal shall have due regard to t he rates of rent prevailing in the locality in respect of lands used for commercial or industrial purposes and the authorities cannot adopt enhancement of the value of the land in the locality for varying the contract rent. 7. In the Original Application first respondent has pleaded that rates of rent have increased in the locality after the lease. Though there is such pleading, first respondent did not adduce any evidence with regard to that claim. As the matter requires reconsideration by the Land Tribunal, the case is remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to consider the matter de novo on the basis of rates of rent prevailing in the locality in respect of lands used for commercial or industrial purposes. The Land Tribunal shall afford opportunity to both sides to adduce necessary evidence with regard to the rates of rent prevailing in the locality. The Land Tribunal shall afford opportunity to both sides to adduce necessary evidence with regard to the rates of rent prevailing in the locality. The judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Land Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded as stated above. The parties shall appear before the Land Tribunal on 9-12-1991. The C.R.P. stands allowed with no order as to costs.