1. This Civil Revisionhas been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 16.09.2008 made in R.C.A.No.553 of 2007 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, modifying the order and decretal order, dated 27.07.2007 made in R.C.O.P.No.1222 of 2006 on the file of the learned Rent Controller / XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The revisionpetitioner and the respondent herein are the tenant and landlord respectively. The Rent Control Original Application was filed by the respondent herein under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 (herein after referred to as Act), seeking an order fixing fair rent at Rs.20,432/-per month for the schedule mentioned non-residential premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition.

3. As per the order and decretal order, dated 27.07.2007 made in R.C.O.P.No.1222 of 2006, the learned Rent Controller, after the enquiry, fixed fair rent for the rented premises at Rs.13,057/-per month to be paid by the petitioner / tenant to the respondent / landlord from 17.07.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, both the tenant as well as the landlord have preferred separate Rent Control

Appeals in R.C.A.No.553 of 2007 and R.C.A.No.532 of 2008 respectively, by a common Judgment and Decree, dated 16.09.2008, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority modified the order passed by the Rent Controller by reducing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.10,690/-per month to be paid by the revision petitioner / tenant to the respondent / landlord herein from the date , as decided by the Rent Controller in the R.C.O.P. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner / tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition and the respondent / landlord has not preferred any Revision.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in the R.C.O.P is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant under him for the non-residential premises relating to the R.C.O.P. The aforesaid Rent Control Original Petition was filed under Section 4 of the Act for fixing fair rent for the rented premises.

5. Mr.G.Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the original contractual rent for the premises was Rs.4,000/-per month and the respondent / landlord had filed a petition under Section 4 of the Act, seeking fair rent at Rs.20,432/-per month. Though the revision petitioner / tenant has stated that the original contractual rent was Rs.4,000/-, the same was disputed by the respondent / landlord and there is no supporting document to show that the original contractual rent for the premises was Rs.4,000/- per month.

6. In support of the claim of fixing fair rent, the respondent / landlord has examined P.W.1, an Engineer, who inspected the rented premises and filed the report on the side of the landlord, apart from marking the documents, Exs.P.1 to P.3. On the side of the revision petitioner / tenant, another Engineer, who inspected the premises and submitted his report on the side of the tenant was examined as R.W.1. In support of the case of the revision petitioner / tenant, Exs.R.1 to R.4 were also marked.

7. The learnedRent Controller, considering the market value of the land, depreciation and other relevant factors for fixing the fair rent at Rs.13,057/-per month. On Appeal, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, modified the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller and reduced the rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller to Rs.10,690/-.

8. Mr.G.Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / tenant submitted that the Courts below have fixed exorbitant fair rent. According to him, though the Rent Control Appellate Authority has reduced the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller from Rs.13,057/- to Rs.10,690/-, which cannot be construed as proper rent. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the copy of