1. All the above Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 1125 of 1993, 2023 of 1994 and 2657 of 1997 are directed against the common judgment dated 14.12.92 made in R.C.A. Nos. 986 of 1990 and 1137 of 1990 by the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority and XI Judge, Small Causes, Madras, thereby dismissing the R.C.A. No. 986 of 1990 preferred by the respondent/tenant and partly allowing the other R.C.A. 1137 of 1990 preferred by the petitioner/landlord as against the fair and decretal order dated 3.9.1990 made in R.C.O.P. No. 1208 of 1983 by the Rent Controller and XI Judge, Court of Small Causes Madias, thereby fixing the fair rent under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short TNBLRC Act) filed by the landlord.

2. In fact, the landlord filed the R.C.O.P. No. 1208 of 1983 under Section 4 of the TNBLRC Act, thereby praying for the fixation of the fair rent for the non-residential premises under the tenancy of the respondent bearing D. No. 831 (new) and 181 (old), Mount Road (Anna Salai), Madras-2, at Rs. 31,075/- per month on grounds that the petitioner/landlord is the sole and absolute owner of the premises, which is a pre-1960 construction, that the respondents are his statutory tenant of the said building on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,800/-; that the building is fully built up ground floor with Madras terrace, which is about 100 years old, the first floor is of 4000 sq.ft. with concrete roof constructed in 1969 and the second floor is of about 1000 sq.ft. with asbestos roof put up 8 years back; that the premises has a strategic view from the point of business and arrests the attention of the customers, facing foremost the city, flanked by the Wallaja Road and Blackers Road, situated in the centre of Madras city wherein the business, commercial and industrial activities arc the highest and where every inch of space is greatly in demand; that there is no locality in the combined States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala which could stand comparison in the matter of around importance and business potential encircled with leading cinema houses, hotels, markets, bazaars, public and private offices, city and mofussil bus routes and all the place of public utility and urban importance; that the premises is also abound with all internal amenities like water, electricity and mosaic floor, motor and pumpsets, etc.

3. That in consideration of the importance and facilities of the premises, the monthly rent of Rs. 2,800/- is paltry, disproportionate, immeasurable and unfeasible in law; that the rate of rent per sq.foot in the area would easily come about Rs. 5/- to Rs. 10/- and in the case of the said premises, it does not even work out to Rs. 0.25 ps. per sq.ft., the bulk of which is swallowed by Sales Tax, Income-tax and Corporation taxes leaving almost nothing to the petitioner; that there was a Registered Lease Deed dated 7.7.1971 for a period of 10 years and on expiry with an option on the part of the lessee to renew the same for a further period of 5 years on a written notice of 3 months before the date of expiry.

4. That the respondents claim to have put up the first floor in 1969 without the previous knowledge or previous consent of the petitioner thereby amounting in law to an accretion and as per the provision under Section 108(b)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, the said unauthorised additional construction lapses to the property and becomes part thereof to the ownership of the petitioner; that the second floor constructed by the respondents, since being on the same line, it also lapses to the property and the petitioner is entitled to have a fair rent fixed for the whole building as it now obtains. The petition would further give the value of the site as not less than Rs. 2,60,000/-per ground thereby further making a special mention of the facilities and the market rate i.e. prevalent, the P.W.D. rates, the cost of construction etc. He would also provide with such