Judgment : The landlord/Devasthanam has filed both these revisions against the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, in C.M.A. No. 12 and 17 of 1988, the former filed by the Devasthanam and the latter by the tenant/respondent against the order of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam, in O.P. No. 11 of 1985, which was filed by the tenant for fixation of fair rent for the land of an extent of 700 sq.ft. which is under the occupation of the tenant. The learned District Munsif has fixed the rent at Rs.62-50 taking the fair rent at Rs.50/-. The learned Subordinate Judge reduced the rent payable by the tenant and fixed the same at Rs.37-50 taking in to account the rent at Rs.30/- per year. Aggrieved by the same, the Devasthanam has now filed the above revisions. 2. I have heard Mr. K.Chandrasekaran for the DEvasthanam and Mr. R.Sekar for the tenant. 3. According to Mr. K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the Devasthanam, the Appellate Court has filed to note that both the superstructure and the site belong to the Devasthanam and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel has further urged that the Appellate Court has mis-construed the Proviso to Section 7-A of the Act and filed to note that Section 7-A of the Act has no application to the facts of the case on hand as the present petition is filed by the tenant on the rule that there can only be an increase of 25% of the existing rent. In any event, the appellate Authority has totally erred in fixing the fair rent at Rs.37-50. It is also contended that the Appellate Authority, in any event, ought to have rejected the application of the tenant for fixation of fair rent as he is only an assignee and is not recognised as tenant by the Devasthanam at any time. 4. It is useful to extract Sections 6,7 and 7-A of the Act. “6. It is also contended that the Appellate Authority, in any event, ought to have rejected the application of the tenant for fixation of fair rent as he is only an assignee and is not recognised as tenant by the Devasthanam at any time. 4. It is useful to extract Sections 6,7 and 7-A of the Act. “6. Determination of rent-(1) If, after a decree of interim order is passed under Section 4, the land lord is unable or unwilling to pay the compensation ordered, he may within three months from the date of the decree or interim order apply to the court to fix a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land by the tenant and thereupon the Court shall by its order fix such rent as it deems reasonable: Provided that the rent previously payable for the land shall not be enhanced by more than twenty five naye paise in the rupee. On the passing of an order sub-section (1), the decree or interim order passed section 4 shall be deemed to have been vacated. 7. Application of landlord for ejectment of tenant or fixing the rent-any landlord may apply by a petition to the court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment or in the city of Madras, either to such court or to the Presidency Small Cause Court to fix a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land by the tenant and thereupon the court shall by its order fix such rent as it deems reasonable. Provided that the rent previously payable for the land shall not be enhanced by more man twentyfive naye paise in the rupee. 7-A. Application by tenant-A tenant may apply to the court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment or, in the city of Madras, either to such court or to the Presidency Small Cause Court to fix a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land or where on application under Section 7, the rent previously payable for the land has been enhanced, for a reduction of the rent fixed; and thereupon the court shall, by its order, fix such rent as it deems reasonable.” 5. Sections 6, 7 and 7-A relates to fixation of a reasonable rent for the land in the occupation of a tenant. Sections 6, 7 and 7-A relates to fixation of a reasonable rent for the land in the occupation of a tenant. Section 6 is a special provision which enables a landlord to apply for fixinga fair rent for the land, if after the passing of a preliminary decree or order directing him to deposit the compensation in a respect of the super-structure under Section 4 of the Act, he, the landlord, is either not willing to pay or is unable to pay the same. Section 7 is of General application and enables a landlord to apply to the court for fixing a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land by the tenant. In my view, this right of the landlord can be exercised at any time when the tenancy continues and is not dependent on the issue of any notice calling upon the tenant to pay a fair rent, nor need a suit or application for the eviction of the tenant be pending to invoke the procedure under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7-A of the Act, introduced by the Madras Act 19 of 1955, is yet another provision which can be invoked only by the tenant and not by the landlord. This section even enables a tenant to seek a refixing of the rent if he feels that the rent already fixed under Section 7 of the Act is high. This provision is also independent of any suit for eviction. 6. It should be noticed, however, that while in an application by the landlord under sections 6 and 7 of the Act the rent fixed cannot exceed 25% of the earlier agreed rent there is no such restriction under section 7-A. But, it is apparent from the right given to the tenant to seek a reduction in the rent already fixed under section7, the Court cannot fix a rent which will exceed the agreed rent by more than 25%. 7. In my opinion, the restriction on the power of the Court not to grant a rent which will be more than 25% of the agreed rent seems to be not only discriminatory but wholly unreasonable. The reasonable rent contemplated under the section is based on the prevailing rate of rent for lands in the locality, the value of the land and its location, the use to which it is put to etc. The reasonable rent contemplated under the section is based on the prevailing rate of rent for lands in the locality, the value of the land and its location, the use to which it is put to etc. The rent for the land in residential area will be less while that for a land in a commercial or industrial rea will be more. Similarly, rent in a central location will be more than in a remote area. The rent for putting up a hut cannot be the same as the rent of land used for constructintg a theatre, hotel, etc. It is common knowledge that the rental value of lands in the extended areas of the city, town or suburban areas were very little in the past. With the inclusion of those areas in the city or with the development of Suburban areas and with the expansion of transport and other facilities, development of industries, etc., value and utility of land have gone up beyond all expectations. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that to set a limit that the reasonable rent should not exceed 25% of the agreed rent appears to be an unreasonable restriction. While the tenants have been given valuable rights despite their contracts, the right of the land lord for a fair rent for the land cannot at all be restricted. 8. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the Devasthanam and as conceded by Mr. R.Sekar, learned counsel for the tenant both sections 7 and 7-A of the Act give remedy to the landlord and the tenant to approach the court for fixation of reasonable rent. But the Proviso restricts the increase of rent to a maximum limit of 25% on existing rent. If so, what has been given by the section is taken away or restricted to a great extent by the proviso. However this anamoly could only be rectified by the Legislature and not by judicial process. 9. Coming to the facts of this case as already pointed out, the Appellate Court has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 350. In my opinion, the approach of the Appellate Court is errorneous and against the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. I have already dealt with the scheme of the Act in paragraphs Supra. 9. Coming to the facts of this case as already pointed out, the Appellate Court has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 350. In my opinion, the approach of the Appellate Court is errorneous and against the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. I have already dealt with the scheme of the Act in paragraphs Supra. The Devasthanam has now filed these revisions calling upon this court to fix what in its opinion is reasonable rent. While fixing the reasonable rent, the court is always entitled to take into consideration all factors such as the fact that the present rent has been fixed several years ago and has not been increased for a long time though the rent of the neighbouring properties has been increased. The court can take judicial notice of the increase in the value of the properties since the time the original rent was fixed and the importance of the locality where the property is situated. 10. In the instant case, it is stated that the present tenants predecessor was put in possession of the site alone in the year 1933. The rent was fixed at Rs.30/- per fasli in 1978. In 1984, the Devasthanam claimed a fair rent Rs. 90/-per fasli. The tenant disputed the contention of the Devasthanam stating that there is no warrant to increase the rent which the tenant was paying. As already stated, the trial court has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 62.50 taking into account the existing rent at Rs.50/- which was reversed by the Appellate Court on appeal by the Devasthanam and by the tenant by its common order. In my opinion, this Court can take judicial notice of the increase in the value of the properties since the time the original rent was fixed and the importance of the locality where the property is situate. Admittedly, the property in question is situate in a prime locality in Kumbakonam and the property has got all the advantages since it is located in a place which is fast developing. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the factors such as the fact that the present rent has been fixed in 1978 and has not been increased from that year though the rent of the neighbouring properties has been considerably increased, I feel justified in fixing the fair rent at Rs.60/- per fasli from the date of the application. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the factors such as the fact that the present rent has been fixed in 1978 and has not been increased from that year though the rent of the neighbouring properties has been considerably increased, I feel justified in fixing the fair rent at Rs.60/- per fasli from the date of the application. The order of the original authority is to be restored and that of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside. The Devasthanam is entitled to collect all the arrears from the tenant. 11. Coming to the question of ownership of the superstructure, the tenant contended that the site alone was leased out to his predecessor in the year 1933 and he alone put up the super structure. Both the authorities below, on an exhaustive consideration of the entire materials placed before them, came to the conclusion that the superstructure was put up only by the tenant’s predecessor and not by the Devasthanam. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below in this regard. In my opinion, the orders of the Courts below in this regard are in order and do not call for any interference by this Court. I, therefore, hold that the present tenant’s predecessor-in-title alone has put up the superstructure and that the present tenant is entitled to the benefits of the Act. 12. For the fore-going reasons, both the revisions are allowed in part and the order passed by the Appellate Authority is modified only to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.