1. The petitioner is the landlady. She is aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in reversing the finding of the learned Rent Controller while fixing the fair rent.

2. Short facts of the case are as follows:

The subject matter property was originally owned by the petitioner's mother. After her death, the said property was inherited by her 5 children viz., the petitioner and her three brothers and one sister equally with 1/5th share each. The respondent herein is the tenant of the said premises originally by paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-to the petitioner's mother. After her death, by way of a periodical increase, the monthly rent was increased to Rs.10,000/- and the petitioner was paid her share of Rs.2,000/- from the total rental amount. On 13.01.1999, the respondent purchased 4/5th undivided share of the petition premises from the other 4 sharers by way of a registered sale deed. Consequently, the respondent became the owner in respect of the 4/5th undivided share on and from 13.01.1999 and the petitioner is continuing to be the owner in respect of 1/5th undivided share of the petition mentioned property.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after such purchase, the respondent wanted the petitioner also to part with her 1/5th share by way of sale which she declined. The rent which is being paid by the respondent is not reflecting the fair rent and therefore, she filed H.R.C.O.P.No.100/2000 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondichery under section 5(4) of the Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1969 for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.1,76,000/-per month for the entire premises and consequently, seeking for a direction to the tenant to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.35,200/- per month as rent being the 1/5th share. For making such claim, the petitioner heavily relied on the sale deed dated 13.09.1999 executed by the other sharers in favour of the respondent in respect of 4/5th share of the very same premises. The market value of the property was shown therein as Rs.1,76,00,000/-.

4. The said application was resisted by the respondent. It is their contention that the market value of the property reflected in the sale deed dated 13.01.1999 was only shown as a fancy price on account of the fact that the respondent was in long possession thereof for their business purposes. Thus, it is contended by them that the market price shown therein was not really reflecting the true value but it is an excessive price on account of long possession and out of a desire to have full ownership by the occupants themselves. Thus, the respondent opposed the claim of the landlady for fixing the fair rent at the rate of Rs.35,200/- being her 1/5th share.

5. The learned Rent Controller after considering the rival pleadings and by considering the value shown in the sale deed dated 13.01.1999 apart from the guideline value, fixed the market value of the demised premises as Rs.1,58,82,598/-. Consequently, he fixed the fair rent over the demised premises as Rs.1,58,825/- out of which 1/5th share of the petitioner was fixed as Rs.31,765/-.

6. The said order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged by the tenant in R.C.A.No.18/2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and fixed the market value of the petition mentioned premises as Rs.40,68,418/-. Consequently, by fixing Rs.8,13,684/- as 1/5th share value, the rent payable for such 1/5th share was fixed as Rs.8,150/-. The said judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority is under challenge before this Court.

7. Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C.A. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel would submit that the only dispute between the parties is with regard to the market value fixed by the Authorities below.