The central legal point established is that fair rent determination under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 should not solely rely on guideline value, and requires sufficient evidence of market value.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 30.03.2004, made in R.C.A.No.34 of 2002, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai, confirming the order dated 16.07.2002, made in R.C.O.P.No.369 of 1994, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Madurai Town.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord of the demised building. The contractual rent for the said building was Rs.600/- p.m. The respondent/landlord has filed RCOP No.369 of 1994, before the learned Additional District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Madurai Town, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, for fixation of fair rent. The petitioner/tenant has filed a detailed counter and contested the matter. On the side of the respondent/landlord, four witnesses were examined and one document was marked as Ex.P.1. On the side of the petitioner/tenant, he was examined as R.W.1. Two documents were marked as witness documents. The learned Additional District Munsif cum Rent Controller appointed a Commissioner and his report was marked as Ex.C.1. A sketch prepared by an Engineer and his report was marked as Exs.C.2 and C.3 respectively. After considering the materials available on record, the learned Additional District Munsif cum Rent Controller by an order dated 16.07.2002, determined the rent at Rs.2,592/- as fair rent and directed the petitioner/tenant to pay the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/tenant has filed RCA No.34 of 2002, before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai. After hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority by an order dated 30.03.2004, modified the order of the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller and fixed the fair rent at Rs.2, 527/- p.m. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/tenant has filed the present civil revision petition before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit that the Courts below have fixed the fair rent only on the basis of the guideline value of the property maintained at the Registrar’s Office. He would further contend that as per the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (2) CTC 433 (Sakthi & Co Vs. Shree Desigachary), determination of market value of the property for the purpose of fixing the fair rent based on guideline value is illegal.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would contend that it is of course correct, the fair rent cannot be fixed solely on the basis of the guideline value of the property as maintained at the Registrar’s Office but, his contention would be that in the counter filed before the lower Court, the petitioner/tenant has admitted that the market value of the property would be somewhere between Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per sq.ft. On this admission of the petitioner/tenant he would make a submission that atleast on the basis of the above said admission, a fair rent may be fixed appropriately. He would further submit that apart from the guideline value, there are materials available on record by way of oral evidence, through the report of the Commissioner and the report of the qualified Engineer to determine the market value of the property to fix the fair rent. He would conclude his argument stating that the order of the lower Appellate Court requires to be sustained.

6. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. At the outset, I have to state that the Judgment