Judgment :- 1. Tenant in RCOP 1971 of 1988 on the file of Court of Small Causes, Madras is the petitioner herein. 2. The petition was filed for fixation of fair rent. Trial Court fixed fair rent as Rs. 965/-. Aggrieved by the order, tenant preferred RCA 659 of 1994 on the file of Appellate Authority. After hearing both sides, Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1120/-. It is against the said order the revision petition is filed. 3. Only point that is argued by learned counsel for petitioner is whether in the appeal filed by the tenant challenging the fixation of fair rent, Appellate Authority is justified in enhancing the fair rent? 4. I heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 5. In 1974 (1) S.C.C. 424 ( Raval and Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran ), their Lordships considered the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Lease Control) Act, regarding fixation of fair rent. In para 19 of the judgment their Lordships approved the Full Bench of this Court and held thus, “The Madras High Court reviewed all the decisions of this Court except the latest one in Manujendra v. Purendu Prasad (supra). We have already pointed out that the criticism made in that decision regarding Krishnamurthys case (supra) was not justified. We are in agreement with the view of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court that the various decisions of this Court were based upon particular provisions of the Acts which were under consideration, mainly the Bombay Act which is vitally different from the Madras Act. A close analysis of the Madras Act shows that it has a scheme of its own and it is intended to provide a complete (Code in respect of both contractual tenancies as well as what arc popularly called statutory tenancies. As noticed earlier the definition of the term ‘land lord’ as well as the term ‘tenant’ shows that the Act applies to contractual tenancies as well as cases of “Statutory tenants” and their landlords. On some supposed general principles governing all Rent Acts it cannot be argued that such fixation can only be for the benefit of the tenants when the act clearly lays down that both landlords and tenants can apply for fixation of fair rent. On some supposed general principles governing all Rent Acts it cannot be argued that such fixation can only be for the benefit of the tenants when the act clearly lays down that both landlords and tenants can apply for fixation of fair rent. A close reading of the Act shows that the fair rent is fixed for the building and it is payable by whoever is the tenant whether a contractual tenant or to the landlord who applies for fixation of fair rent but fair rent for the building. Something like an incident of the tenure regarding the building .” (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is clear from the above decision that fair rent is fixed for the building whether it is applied by tenant or landlord. Fixation of fair rent does not mean fixation of low rent favourable or beneficial to the advantage of tenant, as that would result in landlord getting only an unfair rent. A fair rent is fixed as per the specified procedure provided under the Act. Fair rent is essentially just rent having regard to all the circumstances and it is not rent favourable to the tenant as such. Whoever may be the applicant, the fair rent will have to be fixed according to the norms prescribed under the Act. 7. In 1989 (1) L.W. 172 ( Savani Transports (P) Ltd v. N. Jamal Mohammed ), landlord wanted to fix fair rent at a particular amount. But, when the procedure under the Act was followed, the fair rent will be far in excess of (he amount claimed by the Landlord. The question was whether the Court is entitled to fix fair rent than what is claimed by the Landlord. Justice Nainar Sundaram (as he then was) has held thus, “S. 4 (1) of the Act speaks about the fixation of fair rent for the building in accordance with the principles set out in the following sub-sections S. 4 (5)(a) sets out the principle for determination of-the cost of construction and it requires that due regard should be had for the rates adopted for the estimation by the Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned. Merely because of the fair rent to be determined in accordance with the principles referred to in the statutory provisions will exceed the estimation of fair rent done by the landlord, the forums constituted under the Act cannot shirk their statutory obligations to fix the fair rent as per the said principles. The determination of the cost of construction shall be done with due regard to the rates adopted for the purpose of estimation by the Public Works Department of the Government for the area concerned. When the statute says that the determination of the fair rent has got to be done, in accordance with a particular provision set out therefore, it has got to be clone only in that manner and it is no answer to say that the landlords demand in his petition has been met and he could not be allowed to have more in accordance with the provisions of the Act .” (Emphasis supplied) If this is the principle that is to be followed, I do not think that petitioner has got arguable case. 8. Appellate Authority has got all the powers of the Rent Controller and the entire case is open before him. While considering the appeal, it found that the Rent Controller has not followed the procedure under Section 4 of the Act. It reappreciated and recalculated the amount payable to the Landlord. Eventhough in the appeal filed by the tenant, he may be aggrieved in fixation of fair rent at particular amount, when he files appeal, he pleads before the Appellate Authority only to fix fair rent. He has not pleaded before Appellate Authority to fix lower rent because he happened to be a tenant. It is only that power that is exercised by the Appellate Authority while holding that the fair rent fixed by Rent Controller is low and if the norms are followed, the rent amount payable will be higher. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner did not argue on merits of the case. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.