G. P. SHIVAPRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) AN application was filed by the tenant under Section 14 of the karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. In the said proceedings, the landlord entered appearance and filed his statement of objections. Subsequently he made an application purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of C. P. C. for amendment of statement of objections to plead that the tenant has sub-leased the premises. This application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the said plea is totally irrelevant for the purpose of fixation of fair rent and that question has to be determined by the "court" before whom the landlord has instituted eviction proceedings for eviction of the tenant under Section 21 (1) (f) and (h) of the Act. ( 2 ) SRI M. Ram Bhat, learned counsel for the landlord submitted relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act that the Rent Controller ought to consider fixation of fair rent for that portion of the premises which has been unlawfully sublet, by giving a finding on that question, while considering the question of fixation of fair rent to the premises, and the Rent controller was in error in dismissing the application for amendment of the statement of objections. ( 3 ) THE relevant parts of Section 14 are reproduced below:"14. Fixation of fair rent, etc. (1) The landlord or tenant of any building, other than a building in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed either before or after the coming into operation of this Act, may make an application to the Controller for fixing the fair rent of the building. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Controller shall, after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit, fix the fair rent for such building. On fixing the fair rent for any building part of which has been lawfully sub-let, the Controller may also fix the fair rent of the part sub-let". ( 4 ) IN the instant case, neither the tenant nor the landlord plead that any portion of the premises has been "lawfully sublet". According to the tenant no portion of the premises has been sub-leased by him. Whereas according to the landlord, the entire premises has been unlawfully sub-leased by the tenant. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, neither the tenant nor the landlord plead that any portion of the premises has been "lawfully sublet". According to the tenant no portion of the premises has been sub-leased by him. Whereas according to the landlord, the entire premises has been unlawfully sub-leased by the tenant. Whether the tenant has sub-leased the premises, either lawfully or unlawfully, is a question which is now pending consideration before the "court" in the aforesaid HRC proceedings. ( 5 ) IN view of the fact that neither of the parties is asserting that any part of the premises has been lawfully sublet, the Rent controller is right in rejecting the application for amendment of the objection statement, to plead that the tenant has sub-leased the premises unlawfully, since that is not an issue which he is competent to determine. ( 6 ) SINCE the application for amendment of the statement of objections made by the landlord has been rejected by the Rent controller on the ground that such a plea is totally irrelevant for the purpose of fixation of fair rent, whatever observation he has made in this regard will have no bearing on the proceedings pending before the Civil Court. ( 7 ) I see no error in the order of the Rent Controller. Hence, revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .