M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. The civil revision petitioner is the tenant has preferred two revisions in C.R.P. Nos.2137 and 2138 of 2011 against the dismissal of R.C.A. No.1269 of 2004 and allowing R.C.A. No.1063 of 2004, on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, enhancing the fair rent at Rs.31,927/- p.m. from the fair rent fixed at Rs.16,010/- p.m. by the learned Rent Controller.

2. The case of the Respondent/Landlord is briefed as follows:

The respondent has purchased the petition premises bearing No.1A, Chari Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 abutting North Usman Road and lying parallel to Bazullah Road, very near to Kodambakkam Railway Station. The respondent has purchased the petition premises for a valuable consideration from one Mr. V. Ramesh by way of Registered Sale Document No.1633 of 2002 dated 13.07.2002 in Ex.R2. As per Registration Endorsement of Collection of deficit stamp duty of Rs.25,000/- on 16.07.2002. During 10 years, it is second successive sale. Being the landlord, the respondent has filed RCOP. No.2167 of 2002 on the file of the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai for fixation of Fair Rent at Rs.70,897.46/-.

As per his pleading:

Total Area 1885 Sq. ft.

R.C.C. 1010 Sq. ft.

A.C.C. 875 Sq. ft.

Cost of land Rs.4284/- per sq. ft.

Cost of land Rs.63,10,946.82

Cost of construction Rs.7,78,800/-

Fair Rent Rs.70,897.46

3. The case of the petitioner/tenant is briefed as follows:-

As per pleading of the petitioner/tenant, it is an admission by the tenant in respect of "A" portion two shops under Mr. P.A. Saleem as per agreement dated 20.07.1987, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- comprising of Rs.1,500/- towards monthly rent and Rs.500/- p.m. towards amenities and denial of monthly rent at Rs.12,000/- it is also contended that the erstwhile landlord Mr. P.A. Saleem had to pay huge amount towards purchase of materials from him and his brother Asokan and denied. Occupation of R.C.C. and A.C. roof area, Type-1 construction and teak-wood jointly etc.

4. It is further contended that all wood work and shutters provided by him at his cost and construction of over head tank at his cost. In para 16 of the counter statement, it is further contended.

5. The respondent himself was examined as P.W.1. The petitioner/tenant did not get in to the box. On his behalf, his power agent Mr. Prabaharan was examined as RW1.

6. The Respondent/landlord's Engineer was examined as PW2. The petitioner's Engineer was examined as RW2.

7. The basic difference between two reports in Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 plan drawn as per scale and RW2's report Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 is mentioned hereunder.

8. The PW2 has drawn a plan showing A, B, C portion as per scale in Ex.P2 as mentioned in the pleading of landlord.

9. The RW2 has drawn a plan in Ex.R3 only referring to "A" portion and trating ACC roofed portion as land appurtenant even in the absence of pleading as per instruction of tenant claiming cost of installation of ACC sheet roofing as his own. RW2 measured and noted down the physical features of portion of B and C. His report and sketch is based.

10. The learned Rent Controller fixed the Fair rent as follows:

Land Value at Rs.37 lakhs per ground

For 876.5 sq. ft. Rs.13,51,270/-

Cost of Construction Rs.28,31,691/-

Amenities 5%

Depreciation 1%

Schedule-1 Amenities 1%

Fair Rent Rs.16,010/- p.m.

11. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Rent Controller, the respondent/landlord and the petitioner/tenant have preferred two appeals in RCA. No.1063 of 2004 and RCA. No.1269 of 2004 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, respectively. The Appellate Authority was pleased to allow RCA. No.1063 of 2004 filed by the respondent/landlord enhancing Fair rent at Rs.31,927/- p.,m. and dismissed the RCA. No.1269 of 2004 filed by the tenant/petitioner herein. The petitioner/tenant has preferred two revisions in CRP.No.2137 of 2011 and CRP. No.2138 of 2011, on the file of this Court.

12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant contend