1. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords. The petitioners are aggrieved against the fixation of fair rent by the Courts below. The petitioners' father one Padmanabhan became a tenant under one Subadra Krishnan during the year 1976. These respondents purchased the property from the said person in the year 1988. After the death of their father, these petitioners continued to be in possession of the said property as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/. The property is situated at No. 188, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai -18, measuring an extent of 830 sq.ft. It is a flat located at the second floor o f the building.

2. The respondents filed RCOP No. 739 of 1999 on 23.3.1999 seeking for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act 1960. They sought a sum of Rs. 9,888/- per month as fair rent to be fixed for the said property. The said application was resisted by the petitioners. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the rival pleadings as well as various aspects involved in the fair rent fixation procedure, through his order dated 24.6.2003, fixed a sum of Rs.9,888/-as fair rent per month with effect from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenants preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No. 958 of 2003. By an order dated 16.12.2010, the Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent at Rs.9,352/-per month thereby modifying the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the present Revision is filed by the tenants.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the tenants are only disputing the quantum of market value of the land fixed by the Courts below and in all other aspects, they do not have any grievance. According to the learned counsel, both the Courts below erred in considering Ex.P6 sale deed for fixation of market value, since such document was not proved by the landlords by examining the parties to the same. It is also his contention that the subject matter of property under Ex.P6 is lying far away from the petition mentioned property and therefore the Courts below ought not to have taken note of the same. In support of his submissions, he relied on the the decisions reported in 2006 (2) CTC 433 (FB) (Sakthi & Co. Vs. Shree Desigachary ) and 1996 (2) L.W. 658 ( K.Ramanathan (died) and Others Vs. B.K.Nalini Jayanthi) to contend that Ex.P6 cannot be relied on without examining the parties to the said document. He further relied on the decision of this court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 668 (A.V.Gopalakrishnan Vs. O.L.V.R. Paramanadam) to contend that the engineer cannot give evidence in respect of the value of the site. He also relied on a decision reported in 2012 (4) CTC 889 (V.S.Kanodia Vs. A.L.Muthu & another) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that in respect of the very same area the land value per ground was fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs in the year 1994, wherein also the same Ex.P6 herein was taken into consideration. He submitted that when the landlords themselves have claimed the market value of the land as Rs.60/-lakhs, the Courts below erred in fixing the market value of the land as Rs.80/-lakhs. According to him, it can at the best be only Rs. 50/- lakhs and not Rs.80/- lakhs as held by the Courts below. He also submitted that the tenants are willing to pay a rent between Rs. 6000 to Rs. 7000 . He further contended that the guideline value do not form basis for market value.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Courts below have rightly fixed the market value of the land by taking note of Ex.P6 document, in the absence of any contra evidence by the tenants. The engineer who was examined on the side of the landlords had also spoken about the value of the property and nothing wrong in taking such evi