The mere production and marking of a document by consent is not sufficient to prove its contents, and the truth or otherwise of the facts or the contents so stated in a document would have to be proved by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe the truth of the facts in issue.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

1. The unsuccessful tenants are the petitioners in these two civil revision petitions, which were filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority/Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.C.A.Nos.173 and 174 of 1987 dated 22. 1989 fixing the fair rent to the premises of the petitioners herein at Rs.760 per month in both the appeals, and modifying the order of the Rent Controller/9th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.C.O.P.Nos.3384 and 3467 of 1984, who fixed the fair rent at Rs.816 and Rs.814 respectively.

2. The respondent/landlady is the owner of the shops in question viz., Old Door No.94, New Door No. 144, Royapettah High Road and Old Door No.64/1 and new Door No.181, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Madras 4. She filed petitions for fixation of fair rent. The tenants were paying rent ranging from Rs.75 to Rs.90 per month per shop. It was the contention of the landlady that these shops are situated in a very important commercial locality surrounded by banks, shops, hotels, bus stand, etc., that they are also nearer to the residential buildings, that the land would fetch Rs.4 lakhs per ground and that therefore, the fair rent should be fixed as prayed for in her petitions.

3. The tenants/revision petitioners while accepting the ownership, tenancy and monthly rent, have contended that the land would not fetch more than Rs.1 lakh per ground, that the demised portions are all Type I buildings and are aged about 40 years, and that the present rent paid by them would be the fair rent for the portions occupied by them.

.4. The learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.816 and Rs.814 respectively for the shops occupied by the revision petitioners as per the calculations found in paragraph 17 of its order. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, some tenants have filed appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs.760 per month for the shops of the petitioners herein. Two of the tenants alone have filed the present revisions against the order of the Appellate Authority, seeking to set aside the orders of the authorities below fixing the fair rent and to re-fix the fair rent to the petition mentioned shops.

5. When the revisions came up before S.Jagadeesan, J., it was contended before the learned Judge that the vacant site, which is not the subject matter of the lease, had been included in arriving at the value of the site. The learned Judge was not able to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. However, the authorities below have concurrently held that the vacant site is part of the lease-hold property. Learned counsel for the tenants raised another contention before the learned Judge with regard to the admissibility of the documents, viz., sale deeds, to fix the value of the site. His contention is, that when the sale deeds have been marked by consent, only the execution of the document is proved and not the contents and therefore, to prove the contents of the documents, the parties have to examine one of the parties to the documents, i.e., either the purchaser or the seller. According to the learned counsel, though certain documents to prove the value of the site were filed before the Rent Controller, none related to the documents had been examined. Counsel for the tenants relied on an unreported judgment of S.S.Subramani, J., in C.R.P.Nos.4673 and 4674 of 1987 dated 10. 1994 wherein the learned Judge had held that to prove the contents of the documents, any of the parties to the documents had to be examined and without their evidence, the contents cannot be held to be proved even though the documents have been marked by consent. The learned Judge having held so, remanded the matter to the Rent C ontroller for taking a decision afresh by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence afresh. Placing reliance on the judgment of S.S.Subramani, J., the counsel for the petitioners/tenants contended before the lea