1. The Petitioner in the above C.R.P. is a Tenant under the Respondent therein in respect of the Petition premises.

2. The Respondent herein filed R.C.O.P No.40 of 2001 before the Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif) Salem, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent for the petition premises.

3. The Petitioner contested the Petition inter alia contending as follows:

a. The Petitioner is unaware of the alleged purchase of the petition premise’s by the Respondent; the Petitioner had become a Tenant, under one Kuppusamy Chettiar and his son in 1979; it is false to allege that the vendors of the Respondent directed the Petitioner to pay the rent to the Respondent since March 1997; there is no attornment of tenancy in favour of the Respondent; the Petitioner repaired the building with the consent of the Landlord by spending Rs.3,60,000/-; the Landlord agreed to sell the property to the Petitioner and agreed to adjust, the said amount towards the sale price or the monthly rent; since the electricity service connection was disconnected, the Petitioner got it restored by spending Rs.1,00,000/-; there is no relationship of Landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and the Respondent; it is not correct to state that the vacant site will fetch more than Rs.250/- per sq.ft; it is equally false to allege that the building is worth about. Rs.5,00,000/-; the building has not amenities at all and the question of fixing the fair rent to the Petition premises does not arise.

4. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the Respondent/Landlord P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.12 were marked. On the side of the Tenant/ Petitioner R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

5. The Rent Controller after holding that there is relationship of Landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and the Respondent fixed the fair rent for the Petition Premises at Rs.5,250/- p.m.

6. Being aggrieved by that the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.33 of 2005.

7. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal confirming the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller.

8. Being aggrieved by that the Petitioner is before this Court.

9. Heard both.

10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions:

a. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, the guideline value mentioned in Ex.A8 has been relied upon by the authorities below for fixing the market value of the land and no other document whatsoever has been filed by the Landlord to prove the market, value of the Land over which the petition premises is constructed.

b. The learned Counsel submitted that for fixing the market value of the land over which the building is constructed, the guideline value cannot be taken as the basis but the market value has to be arrived at on the basis of the Sale Deeds pertaining to the lands/properties located in the same locality and in the absence of the same, the market value can be determined on the basis of other acceptable evidence.

c. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in M/s.Sakthi and Company through its partner, Veeranan v. Shree Desigachary, 2006 (2) CTC 433 (FB) : 2006 (2) ML J 295 (F.B) and another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in A.V. Gopalakrishnan v. O.L.V.R. Paramanandam, 2007 (3) CTC 668.

d. The learned Counsel submitted that in the Petition, the Respondent herein has mentioned the total area of the Petition premises as 3000 Sq.ft., whereas the authorities below, on the basis of the Commissioner’s Report, have taken the total extent of areas 3940 sq.ft though the Respondent himself has not filed any Petition to amend the Petition or the petition schedule.

e. The tenant had repaired the building with the knowledge and consent of the previous Landlord by spending Rs.3,60,000/- and t