fixation of fair rent has to been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

1. Both these revision petitions arise from H.R.C.O.P.No.96 of 1992, which is a petition for fixation of fair rent. Landlord filed the same. The agreed rent was Rs.600, and the tenant is making use of the same to conduct a bar by name ‘Simla Bar’.

2. It is the case of the landlord that the premises in question is situated in Jawaharlal Nehru Street,Pondicherry, which is a big market place. It consists of a ground floor and a room in the first floor. The built-up area is 112.54 sq.metres., and the value of the building including the site will be Rs.l1,50,000. According to him, he is entitled to get the rent fixed at Rs.10,500 per month.

3. In the counter-statement filed by the tenant, he admitted the rental arrangement. According to him, most of the basic amenities are not available. Even the plinth area of the building is disputed. According to him, the claim of the landlord is very excessive, and the agreed rent is reasonable.

4. Rent Controller, as per Order dated 31.7.1995, held that the landlord is not entitled to any relief, and accordingly dismissed the petition. Rent Controller was of the view that the landlord has not proved either the value of the property, and the various exhibits filed before court are not relevant. The valuation statement filed by C.W.2 was found to be of no use for fixing the rent. Since no materials had been placed before the Rent Controller, he was of the opinion that the fair rent could not be fixed, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

5. Aggrieved by the Order of Rent Controller, landlord filed an appeal as M.A.No.20 of 1995, on the file of Principal District Judge at Pondicherry. The Appellate Authority, after considering the entire evidence, held that the fair rent will be Rs.3,000 per mensem. The Appellate Authority, came to the conclusion that the evidence of P. W.2 cannot be accepted. It also came to the conclusion that there is no proper classification made regarding the nature of building. The land value was fixed at Rs.2,30,000, and the building was valued at Rs.70,000. The total value of the premises was said as Rs.3,00,000 and on that basis fair rent was fixed at Rs.3,000. It is this order judgment of the Appellate Authority which is challenged by the landlord and tenant in both these Revisions.

6. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and also after perusing the evidence, I am of the view that the entire matter deserves reconsideration. An application for fixation of fair rent cannot be. dismissed, and the procedure adopted by the Rent Controller is wrong. If no evidence is let in, law presumes that the agreed rent should be fixed as fair rent. The Appellate Authority has also committed a serious error in fixing the rent at Rs.3,000. The main reason for fixing the rent at Rs.3,000 was, the fixation of land value at Rs.2,30,000. For fixing the land value at Rs.2,30,000, there was no evidence at all by the landlord. The market value of the property cannot be decided simply on the basis of valuation report on building plan. It has to be fixed on the basis of sale transactions more or less in the same locality having similar advantages, by a willing purchaser from a willing vendor. In this case, the Rent Controller has discarded the Commissioners Report The Appellate Authority has relied on the evidence of P.W.1 wherein he has said that he ascertained from the office of the Sub Registrar that the value of the land in that locality will be Rs.275 per sq.ft. That evidence was fully accepted by the Appellate Authority when he said thus: “I hold that it is safe to accept the extent of the land as 12’ x 70’ and the value as Rs.275 per sq.ft. as per value given by Sub Registrar.” Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has held that the valueof the property is Rs.2,30,000.

7. In Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer,