1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 27.03.2008, passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul, confirming and partly modifying the fair and decreetal orders, dated 08.03.2004, passed in R.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court/Rent Controller, Dindigul.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the petition property concerned in the rent control original petition.

3. The rent control original petition, in R.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, has been laid by the respondent for fixing the fair rent of the petition property, on the footing that the petition property belonged to him and in the petition shop, the revision petitioner is a tenant and the monthly rent for the same had been determined at Rs.100/- in the rent control original proceedings initiated by the revision petitioner and further contending that the petition property is lying in a commercial area and in the prime locality and having various benefits as detailed in the petition and considering the extent of the petition property as well as the age of the building, according to the respondent, the petition property is worth more than Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, praying that the fair rent should be fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month as he is also paying the tax to the Municipality at Rs.160/- per month for the petition property and inasmuch as the revision petitioner is only paying Rs.100/- towards rent, praying for the fixation of the fair rent, as above stated, laid the rent control original petition.

4. The revision petitioner resisted the respondent's case admitting that he is a tenant in respect of the petition property and the monthly rent is Rs. 100/- as determined in the rent control original proceedings initiated by him and denied the case of the respondent that the petition property is ling in a prime locality and according to him, the petition building is more than 30 years old and on account of inflation, the market value of the property had declined and it is false to state that the value of the petition property is more than Rs.2,00,000/- as stated in the petition and there is no sale transaction in respect of the properties situated in and around the area, where the petition property is located and according to him, only to wreck vengeance, the petition has been laid by the respondent on having lost the rent control proceedings initiated by him against the revision petitioner and contending that the rent paid by him is a fair rent, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

5. Based on the materials placed on record of both sides, the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,500/- per month, and the same had also been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, however, directed that the above said fair rent is to be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent from 01.04.2003 and accordingly, disposed of the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.

6. Considering the materials placed on record, it is found that the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had fixed the fair rent for the petition property, based on the guideline value, and not on the market value of the petition property. In this connection, it is found that reliance had been placed upon the Commissioner's report and plan marked as Exs.C1 and C2 as well as the Engineer's report marked as Ex.X1 and the evidence of P.W.3, a Technical Assistant of the Public Works Department.

7. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, it is found that he and the Engineer had fixed the rent and for the same, they had obtained a report from the Sub-Registrar for the vacant land and thereby, had calculated the rent and accordingly, it is stated they had fixed the value of Rs.1,71,175/- and thereby, fixed the fair rent at Rs.