JUDGMENT This Misc. (Second) Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.1.92 passed by the First Addl. District Judge Raigarh whereby the first appeal of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the standard rent fixed by the authorities concerned @ Rs. 287.50 p. per month was not excessive and was proper. In this appeal the appellant has raised question that once the rent was assessed by the Municipality @ Rs. 1500/- per year and the same was accepted by the first appellate Court, the provisions of section 7 (3) (a) will apply and the rent can be only 15% added to the standard rent assessed by the Municipality. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is clear from findings recorded by the first appellate Court itself that the concerned Municipality has assessed the standard rent @ Rs. 1500/- per year in accordance with the provisions of sections 7 (3) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On a bare perusal of para 17 of the judgment of the first appellate Court, there is a specific finding that the application for assessment/fixation of rent was moved on 4.1.88. Documents filed are on record and it was born out that the standard rent assessed by the Municipality was Rs. 1,500/- per year and the same was according to the provisions of section 7 of the Act. Once the standard rent was taken to be Rs. 1,500/- per year as assessed by the Municipality, the rent could be fixed only by adding 15% according to the provisions of section 7 (3) (a) of the Act. The first appellate Court while dealing with this point, accepted that the standard rent was Rs. 1,500/- per year and accordingly held that the rent fixed @ Rs. 287.50 per month by the authorities concerned was not excessive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. What I find is that the first appellate Court ought to have proceeded within the frame work of law as provided u/s 7 of the Act and should not have travelled on the point as to whether it was excessive or not. Learned counsel for the respondent referred section 10 (4) of the Act and argued that the same may be made applicable in this case, for fixing the reasonable rent according to the accommodation as provided. Learned counsel for the respondent referred section 10 (4) of the Act and argued that the same may be made applicable in this case, for fixing the reasonable rent according to the accommodation as provided. On a bare perusal of section 10 (4), it shows that in the particular case the provisions of section 10 (1) (i) will apply and not sub-section (4) of section 10. Once the standard rent is available fixed by the Municipality, provisions of section 10 (4) will not apply. Reasonable rent was to be fixed according to the provision of section 7 (3) (a) of the Act. Since the standard rent fixed by the Municipality was available on record and the same was accepted by the first appellate Court, that ought to have been fixed as reasonable rent by adding 15% over and above the same, as provided u/s 7 (3) (a) of the Act. No other point was pressed in the appeal. Appeal is allowed with costs. It is directed that the standard/reasonable rent shall be fixed, taking the assessed rent by the Municipality i.e. Rs. 1,500(- per year and adding 15% on the same as provided u/s 7 (3) (a) of the Act, which comes to Rs. 143.75 P. per month. A decree be passed accordingly. The judgment and decree of the lower Court is modified to that extent.