Mode of calculation and apportion must of the building.

These matters arise out of two petitions filed by the landlord, who is the petitioner in CR.P.Nos.1608 and 1625 of 1985, for fixing of fair rent under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973. One of the petitions, viz., R.C.O.P.No.3115 of 1982 relates to the two flats in the ground floor of Door No.631, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Madras, occupied by A.B.Ahmed Basha, who is the respondent in C.R.P.No.1608 of 1985 and petitioner in C.R.P.No.478 and 479 of 1988. The other petition, viz., R.C.O.P.No.3116 of 1982 relates to two flats in the first floor of the same building occupied by Manoharlal Sablok, respondent in C.R.P.No.1625 of 1985. C.R.P.No.1608 of 1985, 478 of 1988 and 479 of 1988 form one group as they pertain to one tenant viz., Ahmed Basha, occupying two flats in the ground floor. C.R.P.No.1625 of 1985 and C.M.P.No.14705 of 1991 go to get her and they will be dealt with as a separate group.

2. Ahmed Basha was paying a rent of Rs.265 per mensem under the contract of tenancy. In the petition for fixation of fair rent, the landlord claimed Rs.1,931 per mensem. The Rent Controller fixed Rs.635 per mensem as fair rent by order dated 23. 1983. There were two appeals, one by the landlord and another by the tenant, numbered as R.C.A.Nos.1213 of 1983 and 56 of 1984 respectively. They were disposed of by order dated 111. 1984 by the appellate authority, who fixed the fair rent at Rs.890 per mensem.

3. Manoharlal Sablok was paying a rent of Rs.235 per mensem under the contract of tenancy and the landlord claimed Rs.1,488 per mensem as fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed Rs.556 per mensem. There were two appeals, R.C.A.Nos.1214 of 1983 and 55 of 1984 by the landlord and tenant respectively. The Appellate Authority fixed Rs.820 as the fair rent.

4. These four revision petitions were filed, two by the landlord and two by the ground floor tenant, Ahmed Basha. The first floor tenant has not filed any revision petition, though he has now filed a petition for admission of certain documents as additional evidence in order to challenge one of the findings given by the Courts below against him. Though all the revision petitions had been presented in this Court in April, 1985, the revision petitions filed by the landlord were numbered and taken on file in April, 1985 itself, while the revision petitions filed by the tenant were not numbered till February, 1988. They were taken on file only on 12. 1988. But, even before that, the revision petitions filed by the landlord came up for hearing before Sivasubramaniam, J. The learned Judge found it impossible to decide the question of fixation of fair rent solely on the basis of P. W.D. rates in view of the peculiar facts of the case. Both counsel conceded before him that the matter had to be decided afresh by the appellate authority or the Rent Controller as additional evidence might be required. Both counsels agreed that a finding could be called for from the appellate authority regarding the cost of construction. Accordingly, the learned Judge passed an order on 19. 1987 calling for findings from the appellate authority. The relevant passage in his order reads thus:

“.....Both the learned counsels agree that a finding may be called for from the appellate authority regarding the cost of construction of the petition building after comparing the nature of the building for which P.W.D. has prescribed the rates and specifications available for such building with the P. W.D. and the type of construction in so far as the petition-building is concerned. Therefore, the’ appellate authority is directed to consider the question of cost of construction of the petition building afresh taking note of the rates prescribed by P.W.D., the nature and type of construction relating to which P.W.D. rates have been prescribed, the nature and type of the petition building with, special reference to the thickness of the walls, hei