No interference with concurrent findings of court below is required in revision.

1. The tenant who aggrieved against the orders of the authorities below, fixing the fair rent at Rs. 3,018 per month has filed the above revision.

2. The landlords/petitioners filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.360 of 1985 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended, claiming rent at Rs. 2,307 per month. The same was resisted by the petitioner/tenant stating that the building in question would fetch only a rent of Rs. 633 per month. The learned Rent Controller in her order dated 24. 1989 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 3,018 per month. To fix the said rent, the Rent Controller found that the age of the building is 76 on the date of filing R.C.O.P., and adopted cost of construction as per the P.W.D. rate, and fixed the basic amenities at 5%. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A.No. 411 of 1989 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras/Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has filed the above Revision.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant has submitted that even according to the respondents/landlords, the age of the building is 100 years old and the authorities below have fixed the same only at 76, relying on the earlier proceedings taken by the landlords, to evict the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The learned counsel has also submitted that since the building in question is in a dilapidated condition, it has no value and the P.W.D.rate could not be adopted to fix the cost of construction. He has further submitted that the electrification was done by the tenant itself and so the authorities below are not correct in fixing the basic amenities at 5%.

.4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords has submitted that as held by the Apex Court and this Court, it is for the Rent Controller to fix the age of the building, etc., for the purpose of fixing the fair rent and the tenant cannot rely on the statement made by the landlords. Relying on Ex.P 9 sale deed dated 28. 1984, the learned counsel has submitted that in the said document, the age has been mentioned as 75, and P.W.1 the power agent of the respondents has spoken about the recitals in the said document, in his evidence. Since the building was 75 years old in 1984, the authorities below fixed the same at 76 in 1985, when the petition was filed. With respect to the condition of the building, the learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is contrary to the scope of Section 4 of the Act. According to him, Section 4 does not speak about the condition of the building. While answering to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding the basic amenities, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that though R.W.1 was examined, he has not substantiated the case of the tenant that the tenant has made the electrification at its cost.

.5. No doubt the landlords have stated in their pleadings that the age of the building is 100 years. In the counter filed by the tenant, it is stated that the age of the building is 130 years. The Rent Controller relying on the report of R.W.6, marked as Exs.P-3, P-4 and P-8, fixed the age at 76. The Rent Controller has also taken into consideration of Ex.P-9 in support of his conclusion. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has submitted that the authorities below are not correct in relying on the document, in the absence of any evidence from the person concerned to the document. In support of his submission, he has relied on the decision in Ramanathan, K. (died) And Another v. B.K. Nalini Jayanthi, 1996 (II) C.T.C. 700. In the said