Judgment : The landlords are the petitioners in both the revisions. C.R.P.No.2499 of 1986 is directed against the order passed in R.CANo.1147 of 1983 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982. C.R.P.No.2500 of 1986 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A.No. 1172 of 1983 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982. The landlords filed a petition for fixation of fair rent under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. The petition premises is situated at 69, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1. Originally, the tenant was paying a sum of Rs.350 by way of monthly rent. The landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.3120 of 1975 under Sec.4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.550 per month. On appeal in R.C.A.No.47 of 1979, the fair rent was determined at Rs.538 per month. Thereafter, the landlords filed the present petition under Sec.4 of the Act to determine the fair rent in R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982 in July, 1982. The landlords claimed the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 1,415 per month. The authorities below held that in view of the fact that the fair rent was fixed in R.C.O.P.No.3120 of 1975 and R.C.A.No.47 of 1979, it is not open to the landlord to file a second petition R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982 for fixation of fair rent in view of the provisions contained in Sec.5(3) of the Act. The Rent Controller held that the second petition filed under Sec.4 of the Act is maintainable in view of the decision rendered in M.A.Ethirajulu Naidu v. Haji Abu Baker and Sons, (1964)2 M.L.J. 98 and the Rent Controller also determined the fair rent at the rate of Rs.915 per month. As against the order passed by the Rent Controller, both the tenant as well as the landlords preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the landlords in R.C.A.No.1147 of 1983 and allowed the appeal R.C.A.No.1172 of 1983 filed by the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that a second petition for the fixation of fair rent after 26. 1973 is not possible. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the landlords in R.C.A.No.1147 of 1983 and allowed the appeal R.C.A.No.1172 of 1983 filed by the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that a second petition for the fixation of fair rent after 26. 1973 is not possible. Relying upon a decision of this Court rendered in Sha Dhanraj Chunilal v. C.Vedachalam Chetty, 99 L.W. 672, he held that the second petition filed by the landlord for the fixation of fair rent is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and the appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed. Ultimately, the order passed by the Rent Controller in determining the fair rent at Rs.915 was set aside. Consequently, the rent payable is at Rs.538 per month. 2. As against the orders passed in R.C.A.No.1147 of 1983 and R.C.A.No.ll72of 1983, the landlords are in revisions before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the landlords the petitioners herein, submitted as under: Even though the second application for the fixation of fair rent was filed, after 26. 1973, inasmuch as the cost of living was increased, the fair rent fixed at the rate of Rs.538 per month in R,C. A.No.47 of 1979, is inadequate. It was further submitted that even though there is no addition to the existing building, in view of the fact that the value of the properties is increased periodically, the fair rent should also be fixed according to the increased market value. Again, it was submitted that the principle of res judicata may not be applicable to the matter like this, where the cause of action is different for claiming fair rent for subsequent period. Again, it was pointed out that if once the fair rent was fixed, it cannot remain tor ever inspite of the fact that the value of the properties is increased day by day. In view of these facts, it was submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in setting aside the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982 and so also, the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the landlords and allowed the appeal filed by the tenant. In view of these facts, it was submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in setting aside the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982 and so also, the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the landlords and allowed the appeal filed by the tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant, while supporting the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Sec.5(3) of the Act, if once the fair rent is fixed after 26. 1973, it is not possible for the landlord to file a second petition under Sec.4 of the Act for the fixation of fair rent. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision reported in Sha Dhanraj Chunilal v. C. Vedachalam Chetty, 99 L.W.672. 3. I have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that originally the tenant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.550 per month for the premises situated at No.69, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1. The landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.3120 of 1975 for the fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.350 per month. On appeal in R.C.A.No.47 of 1979, the rent was fixed at Rs.530. Thereafter, in the year 1982 July, the landlords, filed R.C.O.P.No.3230 of 1982 for the fixation of fair rent. The landlords claimed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.1,415 per month. But the second petition filed under Sec.4 of the Act was held to be maintainable by the Rent Controller in view of the decision reported in M.A.Ethirajulu Naidu v. Haji Abu Baker and Sons, (1964)2 M.L.J. 98 and accordingly, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.915. Aggrieved by this order both the landlords as well as the tenant preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the second petition for the fixation of fair rent after 26. 1973 is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sec.5(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by this order both the landlords as well as the tenant preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the second petition for the fixation of fair rent after 26. 1973 is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sec.5(3) of the Act. 4. According to Sec.5(l) of the Act, when the fair rent of a building has been fixed or refixed under this Act, no further increase in such fair rent shall be permissible except in cases where some addition, improvement or alteration has been carried out at the landlord’s expense and if the building is then in the occupation of a tenant at his request. Sec.5(2) of the Act states that where, after the fair rent of a building has been fixed under this Act, there is a decrease of diminution in the accommodation or emenities provided, the tenant may claim a reduction in the fair rent as so fixed. Sec.5 (3) states that where the fair rent of any building has been fixed before the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1973 the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Controller to refix the fair rent in accordance with the provisions of Sec.4 and on such application, the controller may refix the fair rent. Therefore, after the amendment, which came into effect from 26. 1973, the second petition for the fixation of fair rent under Sec.4 of the Act is not possible. This was the view expressed by this Court in Sha Dhanraj Chunilal v. C. Vedachalam Chetty, 99 L.W. 672. Thus considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the provisions contained in Sec.5(3) of the Act, and keeping in mind the decision of this Court cited supra. I hold that the common order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal filed by the landlords and allowing the appeal filed by the tenant is in order. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Hence, both these revision petitions aredismissed, but however, there will be no order as to costs.