ORDER :

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.04.2017 made in R.C.A.No.345 of 2012 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, (Appellate Authority) Chennai, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 11.08.2010 made in R.C.O.P.No.1599 of 2007 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent is petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.1599 of 2007 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. One Gowtham Sand Jain was tenant under the respondent in said R.C.O.P. The respondent/landlord filed the R.C.O.P., against the said Gowtham Sand Jain and other tenants, for fixing the fair rent as per Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the respondent, the petition premises is situated at busy locality, where temples, many Schools, Colleges and Banks are located very nearby. There are number of commercial establishments, Parks and Cinema Theatre near to the petition premises. The petition premises is situated in an important and highly developed commercial area and it commands all the location facilities. The petition premises is type I building, having all amenities. The rent paid by the petitioner is very low and prayed for fixation of rent at Rs.7,055/- per month.

3. The tenant Gautham Sand Jain filed counter statement and denied all the averments in the petition. According to the tenant, rent paid by him is itself on higher side and respondent is not entitled for fixation of fair rent at Rs.7,055/- and prayed for dismissal of R.C.O.P. In view of six R.C.O.Ps., filed by the respondent/landlord, common evidence was let in, in all the R.C.O.Ps. Before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent examined two witnesses and marked 10 documents. The tenants in all R.C.O.P.s examined 3 witnesses and marked 6 documents. The learned Rent Controller, considering the entire materials placed before him, held that the building is type I building with all amenities, fixed age of the building as 22 years, depreciation as 1%, plinth area as 234 Sq.ft. and land value at Rs.75,00,000/- per ground. Considering all the above materials, the learned Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.5,690/- per month. Against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.345 of 2012 and the landlord filed R.C.A.No.58 of 2013. Pending R.C.A.s, the tenant died and petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs of the tenant in the R.C.A.No.345 of 2012 & 58 of 2013. The learned Appellate Authority has taken R.C.A.s along with other R.C.A.s filed by other tenants. The learned Appellate Authority, by the common judgment dated 13.04.2017, considering all the materials on record, order of the learned Rent Controller, confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller, fixing the fair rent at Rs.5,690/- in present R.C.O.P and dismissed both the appeals filed by the landlord and tenant.

4. Against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority dated 13.04.2017 made in R.C.A.No.345 of 2012 and order of the learned Rent Controller dated 11.08.2010 made in R.C.O.P.No.1599 of 2007, the petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The petitioners have raised various grounds in the revision. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners restricted his arguments only with regard to value of the land fixed by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Rent Controller, having accepted the value of the land at Rs.30,23,993/- as on the year 2006 as per Ex.R3-the sale deed filed by the petitioners and Ex.R4 – Analysis report of Engineer of the tenant, erred in fixing the land value at Rs.75,00,000/- per ground, taking into consideration the date of judgment, instead of taking the date of filing of R.C.O.P. by the respondent/landlord. The respondent has