Court can act after considering the transactions recorded in the sale-deed.

These revisions arise out of an order passed under Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlords are the petitioners in both the revisions. One Adaikala Mary was the landlady who filed the application and the petitioners were brought on record as her legal representatives pending C.R.P. Since the 1st petitioner died, the 2nd petitioner his son was recognised as the 1st petitioners legal representative for the purpose of prosecuting the revisions.

2. Adaikala Mary, the landlady filed R.C.O.P. No.603 of 1993 for fixing the fair rent. According to her, the fair rent per month was Rs.2,954. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,774. Against this, the tenant filed R.C.A. No.274 of 1995 and the landlords filed R.C.A. No.311 of 1995. The appellate Authority allowed the tenants appeal and dismissed the landlords appeal by fixing the fair rent at Rs.1,374 per month. Against this, the two revisions have been filed by the landlord. The tenant has not filed any revision.

3. Mr.Rathnadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his document Ex.P-1 was not at all considered by the Appellate Authority and if that had been taken into account, the rent would not have been fixed at such a low level. Ex.P-1 would show that the property would fetch a higher rent. He also submitted that the vacant land had not been taken into account though it was admitted by the parties that there was vacant land. He pointed out to the appellate Judges order where after referring to the guideline value, which gives the value per ground at Rs.7.50 lakhs, the Appellate Authority had for no reason fixed the ground value at Rs.7.00 lakhs per ground. He submitted that the Appellate Authority had erred in not looking at Ex.P-11 which was a document which would show the correct value per ground. The reason for the Appellate Authority not adverting to this document was because of the Supreme Court ruling that if a document is not marked through a party to the document, it cannot be received in evidence. In Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah (2001)2 C.T.C. 424 the Supreme Court had reversed the two Judge Bench decisions in Inder Singh v. Union of India (1993)3 S.C.C. 240 and P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad (1995)2 S.C.C. 305 and held that certified copies of sale deeds could be considered and parties who support or oppose the said document are not prevented to adduce their evidence to substantiate their stand and the mere acceptance of evidence does not mean that the Court is compelled to accept such transaction, it might treat it as evidence. In view of the change of law, the learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority ought to have considered Ex.P-11.

4. Learned counsel are relied on the following decisions: M/s.Shaw Wallance and Company Limited v. Govindas Purushothamdas and another M/s.Shaw Wallance and Company Limited v. Govindas Purushothamdas and another M/s.Shaw Wallance and Company Limited v. Govindas Purushothamdas and another (2001)2 MLJ. (S.C.) 80, Khasim Khaleali and Md.Abdulla and Sons v. Dorai Arasu Md.Abdulla and Sons v. Dorai Arasu Md.Abdulla and Sons v. Dorai Arasu (1956)1 MLJ. 184.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the Court below grievously erred in accepting the market value when it did not pertain to the relevant year. He also submitted that his sale deed ought to have been looked into and the rejection of those documents on the ground that they were not marked through the concerned parties was not correct in view of the latest Supreme Court decision and he also submitted in these circumstances, the C.R.Ps. ought to be