Judgment :- 1. The respondent/landlord in RCOP.No.86 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif),Salem is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein/landlord filed the said petition for fixation of fair rent and on the basis of report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.23,987/- per month. The landlord filed RCA.No.19 of 2003 for enhancement of fair rent and the tenant filed RCA.No.18 of 2003 challenging the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller, Salem and both the appeals were heard together and the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and enhanced the rent at Rs.28500/- and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and aggrieved by the same, these two revisions are filed. 2. Learned Government Advocate Mr.Raja, appearing for the revision petitioner raised the following submissions. Admittedly under Ex.R1, the respondent/landlord agreed to accept the rent fixed by the PWD and under Ex.R2 the respondent agreed to receive the rent fixed by the PWD or Rs.16000/-per month, whichever is less and having agreed to accept the rent fixed by the PWD, it is not open to the landlord to apply to the court for fixation of fair rent. He therefore submitted that the landlord/respondent is estopped from filing an application for fixation of fair rent after accepting the rent fixed by the PWD and in this case, the PWD fixed the rent at Rs.12900/- and therefore, the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Authority cannot be claimed by the landlord/respondent. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that Ex.R1 is dated 12.4.19933 and Ex.R2 is dated 16.5.1997 and the application for fixation of fair rent was filed in the year 1999 and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot rely upon the said document. He further contended that there is no question of estoppel against the statute and under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, landlord is entitled to apply to the Rent Controller for fixing a fair rent and therefore it cannot be contended that the application is not maintainable. 4. According to me, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 4. According to me, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. The Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act provides for fixation of fair rent either by the tenant or by the landlord and such right is given under Section 4 of the Act and it is a statutory right given to both the parties. Further under Section 7 (2) of the said Act, landlord shall not receive more than the agreed rent when the fair rent has not been fixed. It is seen from Section 7(2) where fair rent of the building has not been so fixed, the landlord shall not claim/receive or stipulate for the payment in addition to the agreed rent. Therefore, in the absence of fixation of any fair rent, the landlord can demand only the agreed rent and in this case as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the agreed rent as per Exs.R1 and R2, is the rent fixed by the PWD, but that will not estop the landlord from applying to Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent and the right to fix the fair rent is a statutory right given to the tenant as well as to the landlord and therefore, it cannot be stated that the landlord is estopped from claiming fair rent as he has agreed for the rent fixed by the PWD. 5. As stated supra, till the fair rent is fixed, the landlord is entitled to claim only the agreed rent and in this case, the landlord has applied for fixation of fair rent and therefore, the agreement as evidenced by Exs.R1 and R2 will not prevent the landlord from applying to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. Hence the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted. As regards the fixation of fair rent, it is not contended by the learned Government Advocate that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority did not apply the provision under Section 4 of the Act. It is seen from the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that after considering the various factors stated in Section 4 of the Act the fair rent was enhanced from Rs.23987 to Rs.28500/-and I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and in result, these revisions are dismissed. It is seen from the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that after considering the various factors stated in Section 4 of the Act the fair rent was enhanced from Rs.23987 to Rs.28500/-and I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and in result, these revisions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 are also dismissed.