ORDER : A M SHAFFIAUE, J. 1. The aforesaid cases have been referred to a Larger Bench on account of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court regarding the correctness of the decision in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria ( 2004 (1) KLT 767 reviewing its judgment in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala 1995 (2) KLT 848 to a limited extent, by which section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred as the Act) has been restored back to the statute book. 2. Both the Rent Control Revisions arise out of the same order passed by the Rent Control Court, Chittur in RCP Mo.14/2010 and the appellate order in RCA No.20/2012. RCP No.14/2010 was filed by the landlord for fixation of rent u/s 5(1) of the Act seeking to enhance the rent from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 8,000/-. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition in part and enhanced the rent at Rs. 2,500/- from the date of filing petition. The appeals were filed by tenant as well as the landlord. However, the appellate authority did not interfere with against which both With the rent fixed by the Rent Control Court these revisions are preferred. 3. The tenant in its revision inter alia contended that S.5(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in so far as the judgment in Eager Ferus (supra) does not lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration. 4. While considering the revisions, a Division Bench of this Court observed that though Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act, have been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and void in Issac Ninan (supra), in a review petition filed after 9 years, in Edger Ferus (supra), this Court had restored S.5(1) to the statute. In Edger Ferus (supra), two civil revision petitions and the review petition in Isaac Ninan (supra) were decided as per a common judgment. The civil revision petitions which were the subject matter in Edger Ferus (supra) alone came to be challenged before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos.7088 and 7089/2004 and those were dismissed by order dated 4/11/2009 (Edger Ferus v. Abraharm itttycheria 2009 (4) KLT 673 (SC). The civil revision petitions which were the subject matter in Edger Ferus (supra) alone came to be challenged before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos.7088 and 7089/2004 and those were dismissed by order dated 4/11/2009 (Edger Ferus v. Abraharm itttycheria 2009 (4) KLT 673 (SC). Another Division Bench in Kadar Pillai v. Govern Travels 2014 (4) KLT 593 again passed an order restoring S.5(5) to the statute book, it is observed that the Division Bench could not have exercised the power of review after 9 years of the provision of law being declared unconstitutional and void and could not have restored the said provision to the statute book. Therefore, it was felt that an authoritative pronouncement of the question as to whether any of the provisions contained in Sections 5, 6 and 8 which had been declared to be ultra vires, unconstitutional and void in Issac Ninan (supra) can be brought back to the statute book by a Court exercising power of review or by a Bench of co-ordinate strength. 5. We heard the learned counsel Sri.P.B.Krishnan appearing for the tenant and Sri.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord. 6. In Issac Ninan (supra), this Court held that the combined operations of Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act is a gross invasion on the right of a landlord to carry on business. Paragraphs 26 to 31 are relevant which read as under: - "26. The only beneficiary in the above circumstances is the building tenant He had no investment in the building He has no liability to bear any expenses for maintenance and repairs. 27. Apart from the fact that the impunged provisions are unjust and unreasonable as they offend Article 14 of the Constitution, we may say that those provisions would offence Article 19(1)(g) also. 28. Legislature cannot deprive a citizen of his fundamental right to carry on any business. The word business in Article 19(1)(g) has received a very pragmatic and realistic construction by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sodan Sing v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SC 1988 . The following observations are apposite in this context: "Business is a very wide term and would include anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit. The following observations are apposite in this context: "Business is a very wide term and would include anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit. It may include in its form trade, profession, industrial and commercial operations, purchase and sale of goods, and would include anything which is an occupation as distinguished from pleasure. The object of using four analogous and overlapping words in Art. 19(1)(g) is to make the guaranteed right as comprehensive as possible to include all the avenues and mode through which a man may earn his livelihood, tn a nut-shell ' the guarantee takes into its fold any activity carried on by a citizen of India to earn his living. The activity must of course be legitimate and not antisocial like gambling, trafficking in women and the like” 29. We have no doubt, in our mind in the light of the above observations that constructing buildings and letting then out for rent to tenants would also fall within the ambit of "business” in article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. The phrase reasonable restriction connotes that the limitation imposed on, person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interest of general public. Legislation while arbitrarily invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted under clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be warranting in that qualities. If so, the combined operation of Sections 5. 6 and 8 of the Act is a gross invasion on the right of a landlord to carry on business. 30. We are also of the view that the prohibition contained in Section 6 of the Act is an unreasonable restriction on the right to livelihood envisaged in Art.21 of the Constitution. The ban against the landlord that he shall not receive anything in excess of the fair rent even from the willing tenant who is ready to voluntarily pay in accordance with the prevailing rate of rent in the locality is an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business envisaged in Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The ban against the landlord that he shall not receive anything in excess of the fair rent even from the willing tenant who is ready to voluntarily pay in accordance with the prevailing rate of rent in the locality is an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business envisaged in Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. At any rate Section 5 cannot stand alone without subsidiary and incidental provisions for periodical revision of the fair rent. The legislative scheme provided through Sections 5,6 and 8 is a package and are mutually dependent. One provision therefrom cannot be extricated from the other two to keep it alone alive. 31. We are, therefore, of the opini0n that the impugned provisions do not: stand the. test of reasonableness. Accordingly we declare that provisions relating to fair rent, i.e., Sections 5.6 and 8 of the Act, put together are ultra vires the Constitution of India and are void." 7. In Jan Enterprises v. Aegee Enterprises 2000 (1) KLT 20 a Division Bench of this Court considered the effect of striking down S.5 as unconstitutional and it was held at paragraph 3 as under:- H3. A Division Bench of this court In issac Ninan v. State of Kerala 1995 (2) KLT 848 struck down Ss. 5, 6 and 8 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. The judgment was delivered on 2.11.1995. The R&nt Control Court's decision herein was on 20.12.1989 and the decision of the- appellate- court was on 18.8.1990: Whether the decision in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala 1995 (2) KLT 848 affects the present case which had already been decided arises for consideration. First of all, it cannot be said that the impugned decision had become final as on the date of judgment in Issac Ninan as it is challenged in this revision. That apart, when a law is declared as unconstitutional, its normal impact is that the Statute has to be read as if the defective sections were not there in the Act at all. Unlike in Motor General Traders & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. That apart, when a law is declared as unconstitutional, its normal impact is that the Statute has to be read as if the defective sections were not there in the Act at all. Unlike in Motor General Traders & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 222 where it was specifically held in the judgment that the striking down or S. 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Pent and Eviction) Control Act would not affect the validity of any Proceeding in which the decrees and delivery have become there is no mention in Issac Ninan's case that the decision will have only prospective effect. As such it has to be found that the invalidity of s. 5 of the Act 2/65 is applicable to the present case also. Of course. Act 2/65 has not been down in its entirety and only three provisions have been struck down. Nevertheless in the application of aforesaid principle no distinction can be made between a case where the law is struck down as invalid and a case where it is declared invalid in part. When a legislature makes a law contravening a fundamental right, the position is the same as if it had no power to legislate over the subject matter at all and accordingly, the declaration of the invalidity of the law goes to the root of the legislative power. The necessary corollary therefore, is that though the Act was struck down only as per judgment dated 2.11.1995 it has to be understood as meaning that the Sections struck down were nor in Act 2/65 ever since its commencement. The Rent Control Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to fix fair rent even on 20.12.1889. Nor did the appellate Court have jurisdiction to decide the question of fair rent on 18.8.1990. So the decisions are invalid in so far as fixation of fair rent is concerned." 8. Another Division Bench in George v. State of Kerala 2000 (2) KLT 933 having taken note of the judgment in issac Ninan (supra) observed that despite the said judgment, no steps had been taken by the Government to amend the existing Rent Control Act. The amendment Was expected to convey new provisions for fixing standard and fair rent in order to mitigate the grievances of landlords and tenants. The amendment Was expected to convey new provisions for fixing standard and fair rent in order to mitigate the grievances of landlords and tenants. That was a case in which the Civil Court has dismissed a suit for fixation of fair rent on the ground that S.5 had been struck down as unconstitutional in Issac Ninan (supra). The Division Bench however found that a civil suit would be maintainable for determination of fair rent, but depending upon the contract between the parties. 9. In K.N.Raghavan. v. Habeeb Mohammed (2002) 10 5CC 180, the Apex Court had occassion to take note of the judgment in Issac Ninan (supra) in a case where one of the issues was fixation of fair rent. It is held that when any provision is said to be ultra vires, it covers the field as against all its subjects who are within the jurisdiction of the said legislation and there could be no question of the Court fixing fair rent under the provisions which are held to be ultra vires. 10. In Aboobacker v. Vasu 2003 (3) KLT 1029 another Division Bench of this Court having found that even if there is no provision in the agreement for Periodical revision of the rent, the landlord or the tenant can approach the civil Court for revision of rent. This judgment was also rendered in the light of the fact that sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act had been declared to be unconstitutional. However, the Court enunciated certain principles to be followed while considering a claim for revision of rent. It is further observed at paragraphs 22 and 23 as under:- 22. The above factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive. State Government would bring in appropriate legislation laying down guidelines to be followed in the matter of fixation of fair rent. Many of the States in our country have prescribed the manner, mode and basis for determination of fair or standard rent. We recommend for proper legislation be enacted conferring power to the Rent Control Court for fixation ol fair rent after laying down sufficient criteria for the revision of rent. We hold till proper legislation is enacted Civil Court can fix fair rent on application made by the landlord or tenant quinquennially unless otherwise provided in the agreement between the parties. 23. We hold till proper legislation is enacted Civil Court can fix fair rent on application made by the landlord or tenant quinquennially unless otherwise provided in the agreement between the parties. 23. We remind the State Government to take necessary steps to bring in suitable legislation so that the unlawful system of demanding large amount by way of pakidi can be curbed. Government would also take steps to see that such payment and receipt of pakidi be made penal. The State Government should take note of the difficulties experienced by the general public in the absence of suitable legislation and the ever increasing practice indulged in rack rending. Absence of suitable legislation and guidelines have also increased the workload in Civil Courts and also be for the Rent control Courts resulting in inconsistent orders. Appeals are disposed of accordingly." 11. In Edger Ferus (supra), Division Bench considered two Civil Revision Petitions along with RP No.23/2004 in OP No. 10733/1987 [Issac Ninan (supra)]. It would be apposite to take note of the manner in which the Division Bench approached Issac Ninan (supra). The Division Bench took note of further orders passed after the said decision. Paragraphs 3 to 6 are relevant which reads as under:- "3. The Division Bench which heard Issac Ninan's case was not unconcerned about the necessity of a forum for resolution of disputes as to fair rent. The Bench passed the following order on 3.1.1-996. Shri. P.C. Chacko, Senior Advocate, instructed on behalf of the petitioner is present. This is posted as desired by the Additional Advocate General for reporting to the court regarding the steps taken by the Government on the emergency basis for filling Up the vacuum arising from the judgment dated 2.11.1995. it was represented before us by the Additional Advocate General that immediate steps would be taken for promulgating an ordinance incorporating provisions for fixing fair rent under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent control) Act: This posting is for reporting the matter to us. But Shri. Mohammed Yousuf government Pleader who is present submitted that there is nothing to report now. But he requested us to give one more posting an that in the meanwhile some concrete information could be obtained from the Government On this assurance we post it to 9.1.1996 in the Chambers. Case was posted on 9.1.1996 and then to 23.1.1996. But Shri. Mohammed Yousuf government Pleader who is present submitted that there is nothing to report now. But he requested us to give one more posting an that in the meanwhile some concrete information could be obtained from the Government On this assurance we post it to 9.1.1996 in the Chambers. Case was posted on 9.1.1996 and then to 23.1.1996. On 23.1.1996 the learned Advocate General informed the Bench that the Government is contemplating steps to be taken for amending the provisions relating to fair re. it in the Rent Control Act which remains a dead letter even now. 4. In Issac Ninan's case right of the landlord to get fair rent was established. Lex semper dabit remedium meaning if a man has a right, he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it Lack of forum for fixation of fair rent put lssac Ninan and the litigant public to considerable agony. Many a tenant and landlord approached the Civil Court for panacea. Civil Court at least some of them closed their doors and refused 'o adjudicate them on the ground of maintainability few others took contrary view and granted some solace Original Petition No. 5485/99 was filed before. for setting aside judgments passed by Munsiff, Trichur in O S. 212/97 and also by the first Additional Munsiff, Trichur in O.S. 2120 of 1997 holding that Civil Courts do not have any jurisdiction to fix fair rent or enhance the rent already agreed to between the parties. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition against which a Writ Appeal was preferred. A bench of this Court consisting of the Chief Justice A V Savant and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan in George v. State of Kerala 2000 (2) KLT 933 held that in the absence of any forum in the Rent Control Act the jurisdiction of the civil Court under S.9 of the Code of civil Procedure would still be available for determination of fair rent of a building to which the provisions of the Rent Act would apply were accordingly restored for being disposed of accordance with law on the footing that the suits filed by the landlord for determination of fair rent/increase of rent were maintainable under S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. 5. We may point out though this Court had, alerted the State though Issac Ninan & George's case and various orders passed subsequently, no concrete steps have been taken by the State to bring in suitable legislation or provisions in the Rent Act for fixation of fair rent. The issue again came up for consideration before this Bench in Aboobacker v. Vasu 2003 (2) KLT 1029 wherein this Bench had occasion to consider the situation prevailing aftermath of Issac Ninan's case and held that the remedy available to the landlord and tenant to approach the Civil Court would be always cumbersome and time consuming. We also alerted the State of the necessity to have a comprehensive legislation. We have also laid down certain parameters for the guidance of the Civil Court for fixation of fan rent. We also reminded the State Government to take necessary steps to bring in suitable legislation so that the unlawful system of demanding large amount by way of pakidi could also be curbed. Absence of suitable imitation and guidelines have also increased the workload in civil courts resulting inconsistent orders and parallel litigations. 6. Issac Ninan case was an eye opener in rent control jurisprudence and many Courts in the country have followed the path of Issac Ninan. Issac Ninan could get the law declared, but the remedy evaded him; though he was aware of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. Octogenarian Issac Ninan did not succumb, but reminded this Court of his predicament by filing R.P.23/04 seeking restoration of S.5(1) to the statute so that Rent Control Court itself could fix fair rent rather than the Civil Court and mitigate the grievance of many. Issac Ninan has now resurrected. Shri. Bechu Kurian Thomas represented the review petitioner and for the respondent in the C.R.P. Shri. M.C. Sen appeared for revision petitioner and the learned Add I. Advocate General Shri. V.K.Beeran appeared for the State. Difficulties caused to the litigant public to move Rent Control Court for eviction and the move Civil Court for fixation of fair rent were highlighted. Litigation costs are so exorbitant, and in may cases it is a reality that the landlord has to spend much more than the quantum of rent received by him for the whole of the lease period towards litigation expenses leave aside the time and energy spent on it. Litigation costs are so exorbitant, and in may cases it is a reality that the landlord has to spend much more than the quantum of rent received by him for the whole of the lease period towards litigation expenses leave aside the time and energy spent on it. Challenge in Issac Ninan's case it was pointed out was only with regard to Ss.6 and 8, but this ' Court declared S.5,6 and 8 as unconstitutional and struck doun those provisions. Review petitioner is aggrieved only to the extent that S.5(1) has not been severed from the remaining objectionable provisions. Counsel also pointed out though this Court had struck down S.5, 6 and 8 other provisions relating to fair rent has been left untouched. Reference was made Ss. 4(5), 7, proviso to S.11(4), 5.30 etc. Placing reliance decisions of the Apex Court in R.M.D.C. v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 and Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 1992 Supp' (2) 5CC 65 counsel contended S.5(1) shall be severed from other provisions so that inconvenience caused to the litigant public would be avoided. Counsel submitted preamble of the Act would show that the concept of rent and its control runs like a golden thread through out the length and breadth of the Act " 12. Now considering the question relating to the other provisions under the Rent Control Act especially Sections 4(5), 7 and 3,30 the Division Bench observed that unless S.5(1) is retained, Sections 4(5), 7 and proviso to S.11 (4) and 3C would become unworkable. In paragraph 12, while observing that the Court does not intend to follow the line of thought directing the State to redefine the word standard rent or fair rent and to bring in a new legislation, it is held that the experience is that the legislation is hardly to come in the near future despite various directions issued by the Court since 1995. It was therefore held at paragraphs 12 to 15 as under:- "12. We do not propose to follow the above line of thought since our experience is that legislation is hardly to come in the near future in spite of various directions issued by this Court from the year 1995 onwards. It was therefore held at paragraphs 12 to 15 as under:- "12. We do not propose to follow the above line of thought since our experience is that legislation is hardly to come in the near future in spite of various directions issued by this Court from the year 1995 onwards. Unless S.5(1) is retained and necessary parameters are laid down for Proper fixation Of fair rent the intention and object of the Act would be defeated and the litigant public would be considerably prejudiced. The doctrine of severability Would save Issac Ninan We are inclined to apply the doctrine of severability and sever S.5(1) from other offending provisions which this Court has already struck down in Issac Ninan's case. S.5(1) in our view should remain in the statute book without being subject to the clogs envisaged in rest of the provisions which have already been struck down in Issac Ninan's case. Legislature would not have envisaged a vacuum in the arena of fixation of fair rent especially when the object of the legislation to control the rent which is payable to the landlord by the tenant We are inclined to retain S.5(1) in the Act enabling the Rent Control Court to exercise its power to fix fair rent. Judgment in Issac Ninan's case is hereby reviewed to extent of restoring S.5(1) to Act 2 of 1965. 13. We have already laid down various parameters to be followed by the Civil Courts for fixation of fair rent in the decision in Aboobacker v. Vasu 2003 (3) KLT 1029 . We may reiterate those principles in this judgment for guidelines to the Rent Control Court with a rider as far as guidelines No.4 concerned that the expressions unless otherwise prescribed in the agreement between parties in guideline N0.4 would stand omitted 14. We therefore, enun nciate the following principles: 1. S.5(1) would remain in the statute book enabling the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent. 2. The claim for payment of any premium by way of pakidi in consideration of grant, renewal or continuance of tenancy is immoral and opposed to public and any agreement entered in to for payment or receipt of pakidi in consideration of grant, renewal or continuance of tenancy would be unlawful and cannot be enforced through court of law in view for the decision in Aboobacker's case reported in 2003 (3) KLT 1029 . 3. 3. The construction of buildings and letting them out to the tenants would come within the ambit of business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and hence is a fundamental right. Total prohibition in claiming enhanced rent would amount to unreasonable restriction and also would be violative of the fundamental rights of the landlords guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India. 4. 5.116 of the Transfer of Property Act, if has the effects of imposing any restriction in revision of rent it would amount to unreasonable restrict on affecting the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 9(l)(g) and to the extent of its inconsistency the said provision would be void under Art. 13(1) of the Constitution of the India so far as fixation of rent is concerned. 5. The judgment in John Zacharia's case, 1987 (1) KLT 156 , holding that even beyond the period originally stipulated, till evicted under S. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act only the agreed rent alone is payable by the tenant is not good law and to that extent it stands overruled. 6. Landlord or the tenant as the case may be, can approach the Rent control court for revision of rent quinquennially. Even if there is no provision for periodical revision of the rent in the rent deed even then the landlord can approach the Rent Control Court for revision of rent We hold that the plea of continuous occupation by holding over or the protection as statutory tenant since those rights are subservient to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the landlord under Art. 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Rent Control Court while fixing fair rent could take note of the inflation and resultant reduction in the purchasing power of money, variations in the cost of living index in the area since commencement of the lease, demand for accommodation and availability of the buildings in the locality. 8. The cost of construction of the building including cost of labour and building materials, capital value of the entire premises in the enjoyment of the tenant inclusive of the value of the land under the actual enjoyment of the tenant whether immediately appurtenant to the building or otherwise, type of construction, locational importance, situations of the tenanted premises, ground floor, first floor etc. and other advantages and amenities, such as access to places of public importance like bus stand, railway station, educational institution, hospitals etc. would also be guiding factors. 9. The Rent Control Court will also take into consideration the prevailing rent in the locality for the same and similar accommodation. The type of construction, the amenities, general or special provided in the building, open land attached to the building, whether residential or non- residential are also to be borne in mind. 10. Annual, rental value of the building at the time of filing the application a/so be taken as a guiding factor along with others 11. Revision or fresh imposition of municipal taxes, cess, rate m respect of other increase in the charge of electricity or wafer consumption by the tenant and also by the landlord and increase on account of sufficient repairs would also be taken note of by the Rent Control Court. 12. The Rent Control Court can while resolving any rent control dispute on a application either by the landlord or tenant examine whether the rent is static and requires revision and fix fair rent accordingly permitting the parties to adduce evidence. 13. The judgment of the learned Judge in George v. Narayani 1998 (1) KLT 239 fixing fair rent while reinduction under the third proviso to S.11 (4)(iv) is affirmed. 15. Issac Ninan's case and George's case paved the way for filing several suits before Civil Courts. Several applications under S.11(2)(b) on the basis of rent refixed unilaterally by landlords were filed before the Rent Control Courts. Some of the applications for fixation of fair rent filed before Rent Control Courts are also pending consideration before the Rent Control Courts or Appellate Authorities arid even before this Court. So far as cases in which decision has already been taken by Civil Court and fair rent has already been fixed finally those matters would not be reopened. I hose cases where applications are already pending before Rent Control Court or Appellate Authority or before this Court the same would be disposed of in the light of S.5(1) Act following the principles enunciated by us. As regards matters pending before Civil Courts they can be made over to Rent Control Courts/Appellate Authorities in which event necessary court fees refund orders can also be passed by the courts” 13. As regards matters pending before Civil Courts they can be made over to Rent Control Courts/Appellate Authorities in which event necessary court fees refund orders can also be passed by the courts” 13. In this reference, we are concerned with the legality of the order of review passed in Edger Ferus (supra). Issac Ninan (supra) was filed as an original petition wherein the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. There cannot toe any dispute regarding the competence of the Court to entertain a review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1909 , the Apex Court held that the High Court has, under Article 226, an inherent power of review. Every Court of plenary jurisdiction has an inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In State of Gujarat v. Sardarbegum AIR 1976 SC 1695 , a 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that patent errors can be corrected by the High Court suo motu and even after expiry of the period of limitation, if any, prescribed for an application for review. 14. The argument of learned counsel for tenant Sri.P.B.Krishnan is that once a provision in the statute is declared to be unconstitutional and void, even the legislature cannot bring in a new legislation. In Edger Ferus (supra), the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that other provisions of the statute will become unworkable in the absence of Section 5(1) and therefore a forum in that regard is absolutely necessary. It is argued that once a provision is declared to be unconstitutional affecting the fundamental right of a citizen, 'rt cannot be reintroduced by the Court. 15. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri.Krishnanunni appearing on behalf of the landlord submitted that when a judgment is reviewed in Edger Ferus (supra) and has become final, there is no question of a Larger Bench sitting in judgment against Edger Ferus (supra). Edger Ferus (supra) has been decided on its own facts and a revisit with reference to the factual or legal aspects involved in the matter is unnecessary Further it is contended that, if S.5 of the Act, is not in the statute book virtually there is no provision which enables fixation of fair rent. Edger Ferus (supra) has been decided on its own facts and a revisit with reference to the factual or legal aspects involved in the matter is unnecessary Further it is contended that, if S.5 of the Act, is not in the statute book virtually there is no provision which enables fixation of fair rent. He also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Sushi Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar AIR 1975 SC 1185 which deals with the effect of allowing an application for review. It is held at paragraph 2 as under:- "2. It is well settled that the effect of allowing an application for review of a decree is to vacate the decree passed. The decree that is subsequently passed on review, whether it modifies, reverses or confirms the decree originally passed is a new decree superseding the original one (see Nibaran Chandra v. Abdul Hakim and Others, Kanhaiya Lai v. Baldeo Prasad, (1906) ILR 28 All 240, Brijbaso Lai v. Salig Ram, (1912) ILR 34 All 282 and Pyari Mohan Kundu v. Kalu Khan and Others." It is argued that the judgment in Issac Ninan (supra) stands modified in Edger Ferus (supra) and as matters stand immediately after Edger Ferus (supra), S.5 (1) is very much in the statute book. The learned counsel supported the view taken in Edger Ferus (supra). 16. We are now therefore called upon to consider whether Edger Ferus (supra) lays down the correct law. It is needless to state that Edger Ferus (supra) had been approved by the Apex Court in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria 2009 (4) KLT 673 . However, the Apex Court was only considering the two civil revision petitions. But It is relevant to note that those two civil revision petitions had arisen from the decision of this Court in applications filed u/s 5(1). The operative portion of the order reads as under:- "The Civil Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, no orders need be passed on the application for impleadment, if any." 17. There is no doubt about- the proposition that once a statute has been declared to be unconstitutional unless it is reversed in an appeal or in a review, neither the Court nor the legislature has any power to legislate or reintroduce such a provision. There is no doubt about- the proposition that once a statute has been declared to be unconstitutional unless it is reversed in an appeal or in a review, neither the Court nor the legislature has any power to legislate or reintroduce such a provision. The position of law in this regard has been well settled in a long line of judgments a few of which are Saghir Ahamed v. State of UP AIR 1954 SC 728 , Asir Harneed v. State of J.K. & others AIR 1989 SC 1899 and Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and another v. Chander Hass and another (2008) 1 SCC 683 . 18. But in the case on hand, in a review petition, the Division Bench had reviewed its judgment thereby bringing back S.5(1) to the statute book. 19. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for tenant, is that when a law is declared to be unconstitutional, it is as if it is not enacted at all it is also contended that the review petition filed by Issac Ninan who was a successful litigant, was inherently incompetent, as no grounds had been made out for the review to overcome the earlier decision. 20. Apparently the question referred by the Division Bench is that in the light of Issac Ninan (supra) and subsequent judgment in Jan Enterprises (supra), the Division Bench could not have exercised the power of review to restore S.5(1) to the statute. Primarily we are asked to decide on the correctness of Edger Ferus (supra) on the ground that Apex Court had not considered the order in review petition while disposing of the said case. But substantially, the judgment in Edger Ferus (supra) deals with the review as well. It is a common judgment. When the Apex Court had already dismissed the judgment in Civil Revision Petitions, it goes without saying that the order in Review Petition had also attained finality, nevertheless nothing prevents us from considering the legality of the order in review, which forms part of Edgar Ferus, 21. In Edger Ferus (bupra), Division Bench had given sufficient reasons and under what circumstances S.5(1) had to be brought back to the statute book It is held that if S.5(l) is not in the statute book, several other provisions in the Act, would become ineffective and unworkable. In Edger Ferus (bupra), Division Bench had given sufficient reasons and under what circumstances S.5(1) had to be brought back to the statute book It is held that if S.5(l) is not in the statute book, several other provisions in the Act, would become ineffective and unworkable. The review in Edge Ferus (supra) has been allowed taking note of various factors, the plight of the litigants, the lethargic approach of the Government in enacting a comprehensive legislation etc. In Kamalesh Verrna v. Mayawathi (2013) 8 SCC 320 , the Apex Court had occasion to consider the scope of review and the principles had been summarised at paragraph 20 which reads as under:- "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (Hi) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by /his Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR 1954 SC 526 , to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been miterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the ongmal hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 22. In Edger Ferus (supra), this Court other than taking note of the approach taken by the Government, had also clearly observed that the challenge in Issac Ninan's case (supra) was only with regard to Sections 6 and 8 of the Act whereas the Court declared Sections 5, 6 and 8 as unconstitutional. The only grievance of the review petitioner was that S.5(1) has not been severed from the remaining objectionable provisions. Apparently, while considering the review, the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that S.5(1) by itself was not unconstitutional, whereas if the said provision is not retained and necessary parameters are not laid down for proper fixation of fair rent, the intention and object of the Act will be defeated and the litigant public 'will be considerably prejudiced. We don't find any error being committed by the Division Bench taking note of the mistake or error which was apparent on the face of record in declaring S.5(1) also as unconstitutional. Hence, we are of the view that it was well within the powers of this Court to review its earlier view in Isaac Ninan, taking note of various factors including the fact that S.5(1) was not substantially challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that Division Bench was justified in reviewing the judgment in Issac Ninan (supra), further, this Court expected the Government to bring a comprehensive legislation and when it was found that after a period 9 years, no such legislation had been enacted, the Court was evolving mechanisms to consider issues relating to fixation of fair rent Therefore, it was all the More necessary that a forum is provided to consider claims for fixation of fair rent. 23. 23. However, the principles argued by learned counsel for the tenant squarely applies to the judgment in Kader Pillai (supra) wherein a Division Bench of this Court restored S 5(5) to the statute book. It is trite law that once a provision of law has been declared unconstitutional, Court cannot legislate and restore the same to the statute. It is as if there is no provision at ail. 24. The judgment in Edger Ferus (supra) stands in a slightly different situation in so far as Division Bench was considering a review petition in Issac Ninan (supra) along with two other Civil Revision Petitions. While exercising the power of review, when this Court observed that declaring S.5(1) of the Act as unconstitutional would render various . other provisions unworkable and it could be severed from the other provisions which were declared to be unconstitutional, we do not think that we should take a different view from what has been taken in Edger Ferus (supra). In the result, we are of the following view:- (i) Edger Ferus (supra) holds the field and reference is answered accordingly (ii) Kader Pillai (supra)it directs restoring of Section 5(5) to the Act, is not good law and is hereby overruled. The registry shall place the matter before the appropriate Court for further orders.