Judgment :- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. The tenant challenges the order concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority fixing the fair rent in respect of the building under his possession. The contract rent at the time of filing of the Rent Control Petition in 2002 was Rs.280/- per month. The building is one room in a shopping complex situated on Thamarakulam Road within the area of the Kollam Corporation. The respondent/landlord sought for fixation of fair rent at Rs.3,360/- per month. The evidence at trial by the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A6 series, Exts.B1 to B3, oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and that of DWs 1 and 2. Ext.A4 was a copy of a rent deed executed in the year 2003 showing that a room measuring 45 sq. feet was let out on a monthly rent of Rs.675/-. The carpet area of the room in question is admittedly 120 sq. feet. Ext.A5 was again a rent deed in respect of an identical room in the very same shopping complex showing that the room was let out in the year 2000 for a monthly rent of Rs.1250/- and Ext.A3 was rent agreement in respect of another room adjacent to the petition schedule room leased out in 2004 on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/-. It is appreciating the entirety of the evidence which came on record including the above mentioned documents that the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court fixing the fair rent at Rs.1,000/- per month and granting an yearly increase of 10% per year. 2. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. It is urged that the Appellate Authority has relied on the evidence which was discarded by the Rent Control Court and this was improper, it is so urged. It is urged that the decision of the Appellate Authority to allow 10 % increase per year is contrary to law. Sri. G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed arguments based on the various grounds raised in the revision. The learned counsel submitted that fair rent presently fixed is exorbitant and that there is no warrant at all for increasing the fair rent every year. Sri. G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed arguments based on the various grounds raised in the revision. The learned counsel submitted that fair rent presently fixed is exorbitant and that there is no warrant at all for increasing the fair rent every year. According to him, the fair rent once fixed is for ever and the landlord can collect only increase if any in the property tax levied by the local authority. 3. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.Sudheer. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and we have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We find that the finding of the learned Appellate Authority that an amount of Rs.1000/-per month is the proper amount to be fixed as fair rent for the building in question, situated in the ground floor of a commercial building situated on Thamarakkulam Road, situated only half a kilometre away from Chinnakada, the commercial centre of Kollam and situated very close to Aandamukkam private bus stand and opposite to Raja International and adjacent to the main Branch of the Canara Bank, has been arrived by the learned District Judge on appreciating cogent items of evidence including Exts.A1 to A5 series. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about such findings. 4. The question that survives for consideration is whether the decision of the statutory authorities to allow 10% increase per year can be approved. A cursory reading of Section 5(1) of Act 2 of 1965 which stands presently restored to the statute book by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Edger Ferus v Abraham Ittycheria (2009 (4) KLT 673 (SC), approving the judgment of this Court in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1)KLT 767) to which one among us (PCK(J)) was party, can give room for an argument that the Rent Control Court has power to fix only a definite amount as fair rent for a given building and has no power to permit periodical increase on the fair rent so fixed. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority noticed several relevant aspects such as the value of money being on decline, corresponding increase in the value of land, inflationary trends in the economy and also the regular growth of the city as a whole etc. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority noticed several relevant aspects such as the value of money being on decline, corresponding increase in the value of land, inflationary trends in the economy and also the regular growth of the city as a whole etc. These reasons, we also feel, are good reasons which can justify the decision to allow increase on the fair rent at a reasonable rate at regular intervals. The learned District Judge has also pointed out that unless periodical increase is not permitted by the order of the Rent Control Court fixing fair rent, the landlords who have secured fair rent fixation orders, may approach the Court again for re-fixation of fair rent, and this can overburden the Courts. Avoidance of recurrence of litigation is certainly a laudable object. But we cannot approve the reasoning of the learned District Judge that our courts may find it difficult to tackle the pendency situation arising from recurring litigation. According to us, our courts which are expected to be manned by dedicated and resolute Judges, will be capable of tackling any pendency situation, provided useful assistance is rendered to them by equally dedicated and industrious lawyers. 5. Had Section 6(1) of Act 2 of 1965 continued on the statute book perhaps the ground raised by the revision petitioner against the periodical increase presently permitted would have been stronger. But we notice that Sections 6 and 7 of Act 2 of 1965 were struck down by this Court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 848) case and that judgment has been reviewed to the extent of restoring Section 5(1). Hence we hold that the authorities under the Rent Control Act have the power not only to fix fair rent but also to allow reasonable modifications to the rate so fixed at reasonable intervals by the order fixing fair rent itself. We do not find any warrant for invoking Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 against the impugned judgment. R.C.R. is dismissed. No costs.