JUDGMENT Debangsu Basak, J. The revisional applications were directed to be heard along with C.S. No. 601 of 1989. The revisional applications are directed against the judgment and order dated August 5, 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Kolkata. By the impugned order the Court below dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioner herein under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The petitioner before me is the landlord of the opposite party. The opposite party along with others are tenants of a market in Kolkata popularly known as the Air-Conditioned Market. The Air-Conditioned Market is let out to various tenants. The opposite party and 46 others approached the Rent Controller under Section 8(1)(d) read with Sections 10 and 12 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller considered such applications and passed a common judgment and order. The Rent Controller fixed fair rent in respect of the tenancies. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Kolkata. Such appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order impugned. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that, the opposite party applied under Section 8(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to him Section 8(1)(d) has no manner of application. The tenants enjoy air-conditioning at the respective tenancies. Air-conditioning charges are payable by such tenants. Air-conditioning charges are not part of rent. Air-conditioning is an amenity. Section 8(1)(d) does not contemplate amenity. Amenities are to be considered under Section 8(1)(e). He submits that, Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is attracted and not 8(1)(d). He contrasts the provisions between Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and submits that, the two provisions are mutually exclusive and that, the two cannot be applied simultaneously. He submits that, the application before the Rent Controller was not maintainable as air-conditioning charges are amenities and cannot be considered in an application under Section 8(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. He next contends that, the Rent Controller ought to have invoked Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and has acted with material irregularity in not doing so. He next contends that, the Rent Controller ought to have invoked Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and has acted with material irregularity in not doing so. Since, the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 were not invoked it would be appropriate for the proceedings for me to remand the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh adjudication. He submits that, Section 9(b) has no manner of application. On what constitutes an amenity he relies upon 1955 All England Law Reports page 264 (Morcom & other vs. Campbell-Johnson & other), 2009 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes page 56 (ABL International Pvt. Ltd.) and 1990 Volume 2 Calcutta Law Journal page 310 (Pushpa Devi Gourisaria vs. Sudera Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.). Mr. Anindya Mitra, Senior Advocate for the opposite party submits that, the point sought to be raised before this Court was not canvassed in appeal. This point cannot be allowed to be urged at a revisional stage. He submits that, the petitioner never raised the point that the Rent Controller ought to proceed under Section 8(1)(e) instead of Section 8(1)(d). He submits that, air-conditioning charges is rent. Air-conditioning according to him, is no longer a luxury. In any event, the market premises is such that air-conditioning is essential. Air-conditioning charges are part of rent. The parties considered the air-conditioning charges to be part of rent. He refers to the judgment reported at 1990 Volume 2 Calcutta Law Journal page 310 (Pushpa Devi Gourisaria v. Sudera Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) where the issue as to whether or not air-conditioning charges are part of rent was set at rest. The petitioner is a party to such proceedings and is, therefore, estopped from taking a stand contrary to such judgment. Even otherwise the Court considered air-conditioning charges to be part of rent. He next submits that, the parties before the Rent Controller proceeded on the basis of Section 8(1)(d). No contention was raised in the appeal that the Rent Controller applied the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) wrongly and that Section 8(1)(d) was not applicable. On the contrary both the parties accepted the position that Section 8(1)(d) of the Act will apply to the facts of the case. In fact, such a point was not taken in the revisional application also. Mr. On the contrary both the parties accepted the position that Section 8(1)(d) of the Act will apply to the facts of the case. In fact, such a point was not taken in the revisional application also. Mr. Anindya Mitra submits that, the Rent Controller discussed that air-conditioning charges were part of rent. He relied upon the unreported judgment and order date May 3, 1977 passed in (Lalchand Khubchand Chatani vs. Sudera Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.). He also relied upon 1990 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 651 (Puspa Sen Gupta vs. Susma Ghose). On Section 8(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 he submits that the words “together with” used in Section 8(1)(d) should not be read in the manner as contended by the petitioner. He submits that, the Act of 1956 takes care of the compensation that a landlord will receive for his investment in a property by way of fixation of fair rent under Section 8 of the said Act of 1956. In such context, he submits that, the entire amount of the expenses of a landlord is taken into consideration under Section 8(1)(d) and, thereafter, fair rent is fixed. He submits that, no other provisions of Section 8 are applicable to the facts other than the one applied by the Rent Controller. In the instant case, he submits that, the contract of tenancy was valid for 8 years. The rent, thereafter, payable by the tenant was required to be fixed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller has done so. On the scope of revision Mr. Anindya Mitra relies upon 1982 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 499 (Food Corporation of India & another vs. Yadav Engineer & Contractor) and 2002 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases page 457 (Madan Mohan Kotal vs. Gobinda Kotal & another). I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record. The revisional application arises out of an order confirming the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller. One of the tenants of premises No. 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700071, filed a petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 8(1)(d) read with Sections 10 and 12 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Thereafter, 46 tenants of the same premises filed 46 cases separately against the same landlord on the selfsame ground. One of the tenants of premises No. 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700071, filed a petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 8(1)(d) read with Sections 10 and 12 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Thereafter, 46 tenants of the same premises filed 46 cases separately against the same landlord on the selfsame ground. The Rent Controller bunched together the 47 cases and heard them analogously for the sake of convenience, marked documents produced and proved before him as exhibits. The Rent Controller, thereafter considered the case made out and the respective contention of the parties and disposed of the 47 cases before it by its Order dated January 4, 2002. The Rent Controller found that air-conditioning charges are part of rent. The Rent Controller fixed fair rent of the respective tenancies on a calculation tabulated in his order. According to the Rent Controller, electricity charge is one of the vital ingredients for air-conditioning. The order of the Rent Controller provided that in case of increase of electricity charges by the electricity supplier the petitioner before me will be entitled to increase the air-conditioning charges in terms of the formula laid down. The Rent Controller took into account the total cost of the land, the cost of the construction, the cost of the electrical equipment and apportioned half of the municipal rates and taxes to arrive at the cost of the landlord. In terms of Section 8(1)(d) the petitioner before me was found to be entitled to Rs.4.13p. per square feet per month. The fair rent so fixed was directed to be increased in terms of the formula given by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller held that, air-conditioning charges are part of rent. 47 different appeals were preferred against the orders of the Rent Controller. Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2002 to Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2002 were heard analogously and disposed of by the Small Causes Court at Kolkata by the order impugned. The maintainability of the appeal was urged. The appeal was found to be maintainable. On the point whether the order of the Rent Controller should be sustained or not the First Appellate Court considered whether air-conditioning charges can be considered to be part of rent and if so, whether the air-conditioning charges can be increased periodically. Elaborate submissions were made before the First Appellate Court. The appeal was found to be maintainable. On the point whether the order of the Rent Controller should be sustained or not the First Appellate Court considered whether air-conditioning charges can be considered to be part of rent and if so, whether the air-conditioning charges can be increased periodically. Elaborate submissions were made before the First Appellate Court. The Court on appeal did not find any error in the treatment of air-conditioning charges to form part of rent. The Court went into the calculation of fair rent done by the Rent Controller in each and every aspect. The First Appellate Court did not find any reason to interfere the order impugned before it. The landlord, therefore, did not succeed in the appeal. Fair rent of the respective tenancies, as determined by the Rent Controller and affirmed on appeal, therefore, came to govern the parties. The order of affirmation of the First Appellate Court is the subject matter of challenge before me. It is urged before me that, an application before the Rent Controller under Section 8(1)(d) read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Act of 1956 was not maintainable. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra contrasted the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) with Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 1956 to submit that for air-conditioning charges to be considered as part of rent it must be considered to be an amenity. According to him, since air-conditioning charges cannot form part of rent, it is an amenity. According to him, Section 8(1)(d) did not permit consideration of an amenity for the purpose of fixation of fair rent. An amenity can only be considered under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 1956. Mr. Anindya Mitra learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party contends that, the point of applicability of Section 8(1)(e) instead of 8(1)(d) for the purpose of fixation of fair rent was not taken before the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court. Such plea is raised for the first time in the revisional application. In view of Food Corporation of India & another (supra) and Madan Mohan Kotal (supra) he submits that, such plea should not be entertained by the Court. Such plea is raised for the first time in the revisional application. In view of Food Corporation of India & another (supra) and Madan Mohan Kotal (supra) he submits that, such plea should not be entertained by the Court. Food Corporation of India & another (supra) lays down that a point not raised before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court should not be allowed to be raised while hearing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In Madan Mohan Kotal (supra) the Supreme Court lays down that, it was not permissible to allow a new ground to be raised in revision. The ground of applicability of Section 8(1)(e) instead of 8(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was not taken either before the Rent Controller nor before the First Appellate Court. The ground taken by the petitioner was that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent. Before me the point urged is that, Section 8(1)(e) will apply in view of the fact that, air-conditioning charges cannot be part of rent as it is an amenity. Applying the ratio of Food Corporation of India & another (supra) and Madan Mohan Kotal (supra) I am of the view that the petitioner before me cannot be allowed to canvass that, the Rent Controller erred by invoking Section 8(1)(d) and not 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in fixing fair rent. Although the petitioner is not entitled to raise the point that Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 will apply instead of Section 8(1)(d) thereof, I find that, this ground of the petitioner is without any basis. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra in this regard, in a better perspective, Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 are set out below:- “8. Fair rent – (1) Fair rent in relation to any premises means- ………………………… (d) Where such premises have been constructed and let out after the commencement of this Act, the rent calculated on the basis of annual payment of an amount equal to 6 ¾ per cent. Fair rent – (1) Fair rent in relation to any premises means- ………………………… (d) Where such premises have been constructed and let out after the commencement of this Act, the rent calculated on the basis of annual payment of an amount equal to 6 ¾ per cent. per annum of the aggregate amount of the actual cost of construction and the market price of the land on the date of commencement of construction, together with one-half of the total amount of the municipal rates and taxes payable annually in respect of the premises:- Provided that the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant when such premises are first let out shall, for a period of eight years from the date of commencement of this Act, be deemed to be the fair rent. (e) Where the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) do not apply, such rent as would be reasonable having regard to the situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein and where there are similar or nearly similar premises in the locality, having regard also to the rent payable in respect of such premises: Provided that in fixing such rent the Controller shall in no case allow an increase of more than 10 per cent. over the existing rent, if any, of such premises.” The question, therefore, is whether air-conditioning charges is a part of rent or is an amenity. Mr. Anindya Mitra contends that, the issue is no longer open to be canvassed at least by the petitioner before me in view of the judgment reported at 1990 Volume 2 Calcutta Law Journal page 310 (Pushpa Devi Gourisaria vs. Sudera Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.). He also refers to unreported judgment and order of the Division Bench in Civil Rule No. 1152 of 1976 dated May 3, 1977. Pushpa Devi Gourisaria (supra) relates to a distraint proceeding initiated by the petitioner for eviction of one of its tenants at the same air-conditioning market on the ground of non-payment of rent. In such proceeding, the petitioner before me, contended successfully, that air-conditioning charges formed part of rent and by reason of non-payment of the air-conditioning charges a part of the rent for the tenancy remained unpaid by the tenant, thereby exposing such tenant to the distraint proceedings for recovery of arrears rent. In such proceeding, the petitioner before me, contended successfully, that air-conditioning charges formed part of rent and by reason of non-payment of the air-conditioning charges a part of the rent for the tenancy remained unpaid by the tenant, thereby exposing such tenant to the distraint proceedings for recovery of arrears rent. In such distinct proceedings the tenant sought to contend that air-conditioning charges did not form part of rent. Such contention was negated. Air-conditioning charges were found to form part of rent. In the judgment and order dated May 3, 1977 the issue as to whether the air-conditioning charges formed part of rent came up for consideration. It was held that, the air-conditioning charge will be part of rent. These two decisions were rendered in proceedings in which the petitioner before me is a party. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to contend that air-conditioning charges do not form part of rent. Puspa Sen Gupta (supra) lays down that rent includes payment in respect of amenities or service provided by landlord. Even otherwise, the rent agreement between the parties treated air-conditioning charges to form part of rent. In such circumstances, air-conditioning charges cannot be treated to be an amenity within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The contention that air-conditioning charges are not part of rent and falls within the meaning of amenity as contemplated under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 1956 is, therefore, not available to the petitioner before me in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Consequently, the application for fixation of fair rent cannot be faulted by the petitioner on the ground that, the Rent Controlled misapplied the provision of Section 8(1)(d) on the ground that, the applicant before the Rent Controller was in error in applying under Section 8(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the Rent Controller misdirected and misconducted fixation of the fair rent by invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(e) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In the facts of the instant case Section 8(1)(e) has no manner of application inasmuch as the air-conditioning charges are not an amenity and are a part of rent payable by the tenants before me. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra relied upon the meaning of amenity as understood in Morcom & other (supra). In the facts of the instant case Section 8(1)(e) has no manner of application inasmuch as the air-conditioning charges are not an amenity and are a part of rent payable by the tenants before me. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra relied upon the meaning of amenity as understood in Morcom & other (supra). For the same proposition he relied upon ABL International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Since I am of the view that, air-conditioning charges cannot be said to be an amenity within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 1956, the two authorities cited by Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra has not relevance. The other challenge to the order impugned before me, is the calculation of fair rent. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra submits that, Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 1956 should be read in a manner where the cost of the land and the cost of construction should be aggregated first. 6¾ per cent of such aggregate amount should be found out. To such amount half of the municipal rates and taxes should be added. Thereafter, such amount is to be divided by the area of the market portion. Applying such methodology Mr. Mitra submits that, the fair rent will come to Rs.6.38p. per square feet and not Rs.4.13p. as calculated by the Rent Controller. Mr. Anindya Mitra learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party submits that Section 8(1)(d) cannot be read in the manner as sought to be done by the petitioner. The legislature intended a compensation of 6¾ per cent as the return on investment on the landlord. In such context, the legislature provided in Section 8(1)(d) that the cost of the land, cost of construction of the building as well as half of the municipal rates and taxes should be taken into account as an aggregate. That would be the amount of investment that the landlord did in respect of the tenanted premises and the landlord would be entitled to 6¾ per cent return to such investment. The landlord should not be permitted to read the section in a manner to obtain a greater return on investment that what is intended by the legislature and provided under Section 8(1)(d). The words “together with” used in Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 1956 are commented upon by both the sides. The landlord should not be permitted to read the section in a manner to obtain a greater return on investment that what is intended by the legislature and provided under Section 8(1)(d). The words “together with” used in Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 1956 are commented upon by both the sides. To my mind, the words “together with” should be read in the manner as done by the Rent Controller as also the First Appellate Court. Section 8(1)(d) requires the total expenses that the landlord incurred in respect of the premises to be arrived at. The words “together with” is to be read in such context. In computing the expenditure of the landlord in respect of the premises, Section 8(1)(d) requires the actual cost of construction, the market price of the landlord on the date of commencement of the construction and one-half of the total amount of municipal rates and taxes payable annually in respect of the premises to be aggregated. This according to Section 8(1)(d) constitutes the total expenditure of the landlord in respect of the premises. Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 1956 provides that, the rent will be calculated on the basis of annual payment of an amount equal to 6¾ per cent per annum of such cost of construction. Any other interpretation of the words “together with” will lead to a situation where the landlord will get an inflated amount in respect of his cost of construction and will, therefore, receive an inflated amount as rent. There is no basis, in my reading of Section 8(1)(d), to allow an aggregate of the actual cost of construction and the market price of the land on the date of commencement of the construction to be made and an amount equal to 6¾ per cent per annum of such amount to be taken as the rent to be paid annually and then add half of the municipal rates and taxes as submitted by Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra. The half of the municipal rates and taxes directed to be taken into account in Section 8(1)(d) is the landlord’s share of municipal rates and taxes payable in respect of the premises. The other half is payable by the tenant. In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the order impugned. C.O. No. 2702 of 2004 is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. The other half is payable by the tenant. In such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the order impugned. C.O. No. 2702 of 2004 is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. All revisional applications connected with C.O. No. 2702 of 2004 and directed against the Order dated August 5, 2003 are disposed of in terms of the judgment and order passed in C.O. No. 2702 of 2004. No order as to costs.