1. The revision petitioners are the landlords of building bearing Door No. 33, Chellappa Gounder Street, Kattur, Ramnagar Post, Coimbatore. The petitioner has moved the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore in R.C.O.P. No. 111 of 1998, for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. The brief facts that are necessary for the current purpose are as below:

(i) Both the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have reckoned the site area at 1,359 sq. ft, being the plinth area of 906 sq. ft. and 50% being the permissible appurtenant vacant land for determining the fair rent. Thereafter, for determining the market value, the petitioner has produced Ext.A5 sale deed that pertains to another property having an extent of 949 sq. ft. sold at a market value of Rs. 8,71,059. Based on this the Rent Controller fixed the market value at Rs. 917.87/- per sq. ft. and rounded it off to Rs. 920/- per sq. ft. and accordingly applying this market value of Rs. 920/- to the value of the petitioner's property having an extent of 1,359 sq. ft., it arrived at the market value of the said property at Rs. 12,50,280/- and rounded it off to Rs. 12,50,250/- . The value of the superstructure is reckoned at Rs. 1,00,000/-, which makes the total value of the property at Rs. 13,50,250/-. Calculating the annual return at 9% on this value, the Rent Controller had arrived at the annual rental value at Rs. 1,21,522/- and had determined the monthly fair rent payable for the property of the petitioner at Rs. 10,126/-.

(ii) Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the respondents/tenants moved the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 145 of 2005. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has reduced the fair rent payable to Rs. 3,800/- per month, fixing the market value of the site at Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. In arriving at this figure, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has relied on Exts.R1 and R2, the two sale deeds filed by the tenants before the Appellate Authority.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners now contends:

(a) That the Rent Control Appellate Authority has erred in relying on Exts.R1 and R2, without granting the petitioners an opportunity of establishing that the property covered under Exts.R1 & R2 are not located in the same locality.

(b) That between the Ext.A5, sale deed, which the petitioners/landlords has produced and Exts.R1 and R2 which the tenants/respondents has produced, Ext.A5 ought to be preferred, inasmuch as the property covered under Ext.A5 is located in the very street in which the petitioners' property too is located. At any rate, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not given any specific reason as to why he preferred Exts.R1 & R2 to Ext.A5.

(c) Turning to the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the said Appellate Authority had fallen in error in construing that the total extent covered under Exts.R1 and R2 respectively deal with half of the total extent of 1,544 sq. ft. In other words, the extent covered under each of the sale deed is 772 sq. ft. Only, and in this 772 sq. ft., is sold for consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- in each of the two sale deeds namely Exts.R1 and R2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, even if his preference to rely on Exts.R1 and R2 is presumed to have been correctly made, yet in the matter of computing the market value based on them, should have worked it on the basis of the total extent of the property at 1,544 sq. ft. for a total value of Rs. 9,00,000/- or 772 sq. ft. for a total value of Rs. 4,50,000/-. In stead it has taken 1,544 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-. This is an error apparent on the face of the very materials placed before the Court.

3. This case came up for hearing on 10.04.2018 and there was no representation for the respondents. Since the respondents did not appear before this Court, the case was posted today for hearing. Even today