The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Fixation of Fair Rent must be based on the cost of construction, cost of provisions of amenities, and market value of the site, in accordance with the T.N.Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Bank has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 22.08.1996 in R.C.A.No.544/1994 passed by the Learned VII, Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the order of Fixation Fair Rent dated 03.02.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 passed by the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The Learned First Appellate Authority, viz., VII Court of Small Causes in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 on 22.08.1996 has passed an order of confirming the Fixation of monthly Fair Rent at Rs.35,962/-in respect of the petition mentioned property determined by the Learned Rent Controller from the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition and dismissed the Appeal without costs.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned Appellate Authority viz., the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A. No. 544 of 1994, the Revision Petitioner/Bank has preferred this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

4. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is:

"Whether the order of the Learned Appellate Authority viz., the Learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 on 22.08.1996 in confirming the monthly Fair Rent at Rs.35,962/-in respect of the scheduled mentioned property determined by the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes in R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 on 03.02.1994 is correct in law?"

5. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank, the order of the Learned Rent Controller as well as the Learned Appellate Authority in the main R.C.O.P.No.1843 of 1992 dated 03.02.1994 and in R.C.A.No.544 of 1994 dated 22.08.1996 are contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probability of the case and in fact, the Learned Appellate Authority viz., VII Court of Small Causes, has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the Revision Petitioner/Bank has no objection in regard to the cost of construction, basic amenities and Schedule 1 amenities without considering the Report of the two Engineers viz., that of the Landlord which indicated much difference.

6. Added further, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank that the Learned Appellate Authority erred in accepting the documents filed by the Landlord to arrive at the value of the land without considering the evidence adduced by the tenant in regard to the value of the land. It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank that both the Authorities have erred in accepting the value of the land based on the document filed by the Landlord which pertains to a property more than one furlong from the petition mentioned property. That apart, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank contends that the documents filed by the Landlord pertains to the year 1998, when the petition was filed in 1992 to arrive at the value by simply at 10% per year is only a surmise and not an actual one.

7. The Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner submits that acceptance of the sale deeds relating to their parties properties without examining them as to the circumstances which the property was sold for the price is not a correct procedure adopted by the Authorities concerned and the evidence of R.W.1 Engineer (on behalf of the Tenant) has not been appreciated by the Authorities concerned and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

8. Proceeding further, the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank projects a plea that the sum provided for Schedule I Amenities has not been arrived at as per procedure enjoined under the T.N.Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 without giving a finding on the actual value of the amenities as mentioned under the Act.

9. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Bank that both the Authorities have erred in accepting the age of the building as 20 years by placing reliance on Ex.P11 since it is only