Judgment :- Both the tenant and the landlords have filed the Civil Revision Petitions herein. H.R.C.No.1855 of 1979 was filed by the landlords for fixing fair rent. The premises in question are New Door No.9, Old No.50, Harrington Road, Chetput, Madras. The contractual rent is Rs.2,400/-. The tenant is running a school by name Sherwood Education Society. Mr.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the tenant states that more than two thousand pupils are studying in this school. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,200/- per month. The landlords preferred H.R.A. No.402 of 1980 for enhancing the fair rent. The tenant preferred H.R.A.No.320 of 1980 for reducing the rent fixed by the Rent Controller. The lower appellate Authority enhanced the fair rent to Rs.6,185/- on the appeal H.R.A.No.402 of 1980. The appeal filed by the tenant, i.e. H.R.A.No.320 of 1980 was dismissed. The tenant has preferred C.R.P.No.3769 of 1982 against H.R.A.No.402 of 1980 and C.R.P.No.3770 of 1982 against H.R.A.No.320 of 1980. The landlords have preferred C.R.P.No.20 of 1983 for enhancing the fair rent fixed by the lower appellate Authority. 2. Mr.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the tenant, took me through the pleadings, evidence and the orders of the Authorities below and contended that both the Rent Controller and the lower appellate Authority are not correct in enhancing the contractual rent fixed per month. Mr.Mateen Ghatala, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords, contended that the rate of construction as per P.W.7 should have been taken and should be on the present market rate; that the open space should be taken into consideration and that will include the playground also for calculating the cost of the demised portion; and that the rent fixed by the lower appellate Authority has to be enhanced. 3. During the arguments, the respective counsel had to accept that the cost of construction stated by the tenant is correct. One of the landlords who was examined as P.W.1 has, in his examination-in-chief itself, accepted that the cost of construction stated by the respondent is correct. To substantiate this aspect of the case there is the evidence of R.W.I the engineer examined on the side of the tenant. Further, both the Counsel accept the measurements given for various constructions and the extent of the land on the demised portion and also accept that the age of the building is forty years. To substantiate this aspect of the case there is the evidence of R.W.I the engineer examined on the side of the tenant. Further, both the Counsel accept the measurements given for various constructions and the extent of the land on the demised portion and also accept that the age of the building is forty years. The lower appellate authority has included the sheds put up by the tenant in an area of 2061 sq.ft. and added it to the cost of construction incurred by the landlords. This method of calculation cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered ,in C.S.RAJAVELAN AND OTHERS v. A.N.PARASURAMA IYER, (1970)83 L.W.524, Mr. Justice Ramapra-sada Rao (as he then was) interpreting the word building and the word constructed observed as follows: "The word building and the word "constructed obviously refer to the building constructed by the landlord and not the superstructures to be constructed by the tenant after letting. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the land on which the tenant has raised superstructures for his convenient enjoyment or otherwise ought also to be reckoned and evaluated for purpose of fixing the total cost referred to in section 4(3)(a) of the Act." Hence the construction put up by the tenants have to be omitted from the cost of construction. 4. As regards the depreciation, the Rent Controller allowed one-and-a-half per cent depreciation. It is an admitted position that the building is not having teak would throughout. Depreciation as per the rates of the depreciation mentioned in Schedule 2 cannot be one per cent since one per cent depreciation calculation will enure to the buildings built in lime mortar and in which teak has been used throughout. The second type of buildings for which one-and-a-half per cent depreciation is allowable are buildings built partly of brick in lime mortar and partly of brick in mud and in which to teak has been used. The building can be safely brought under type 2 building and the Rent Controller has correctly given one-and-a-half per cent depreciation. Further, the second petitioner, who is one of the landlords and who examined himself as P.W.1, has accepted that the cost of construction is correct. If that be so, the category will fall under type 2 buildings in the second schedule. 5. Further, the second petitioner, who is one of the landlords and who examined himself as P.W.1, has accepted that the cost of construction is correct. If that be so, the category will fall under type 2 buildings in the second schedule. 5. As regards the cost of the land both the Rent Controller and the appellate Authority have fixed the rate at Rs..50,000/- per ground. This is based upon the value fixed by the Urban Land Tax Authority in 1971 after adding twelve-and-a-half per cent per year as is used to be done by the Urban Land Tax Authority for evaluating the land value. Both the counsel have nothing to say with regard to the said procedure adopted by the authorities below in fixing the land value. Hence, I agree with the reasoning of the authorities below in fixing the land value at Rs.50,000/- per ground. 6. As regards the ground value to be fixed as per section 4(4) of the Act, the total area demised for occupation of the tenants is 26464 sq.ft. of which the constructed portion by the landlords in 3854 sq.ft. The tenant has constructed in about 2061 sq.ft. Hence the open ground left after such constructions is eight grounds and 1399 sq.ft. It is not possible to take all this 8 grounds and 1399 sq.ft. as an amenity for play ground as per the first schedule to section 4. In the 8 grounds and odd, 4 grounds and 1399 sq.ft. can be safely regarded as playground that comes under the amenities mentioned in schedule I to section 4. The other 4 grounds along with 2061 sq.ft. on which the tenant has put up construction will have to be taken as appurtenant land to the main building. By properly calculating the cost of the building in the light of the above said facts, it comes to Rs.2,53,401/-. Deducting the one-and-a-half per cent depreciation the value comes to Rs.1,37,976/-. The amenities at the rate of ten per cent come to Rs.13,797. Adding this, the cost of the building will increase to Rs.1,51,773. The cost of the land, i.e. the land on which the superstructure stands, plus half, of the appurtenant land (appurtenant land is 4 grounds and 2061 sq.ft.), comes to Rs. 1,89,675/-. The total, after adding this, for the purpose of calculating the construction cost comes to Rs. 3,41,448/-. Adding this, the cost of the building will increase to Rs.1,51,773. The cost of the land, i.e. the land on which the superstructure stands, plus half, of the appurtenant land (appurtenant land is 4 grounds and 2061 sq.ft.), comes to Rs. 1,89,675/-. The total, after adding this, for the purpose of calculating the construction cost comes to Rs. 3,41,448/-. To this, I am of the view, 25% amenities can be safely added in order to determine the actual cost of construction for the purpose of the Act. That cones to Rs.85,362/-. Adding this amenity, the total cost of construction for the purpose of a ascertaining the fair rent, comes to Rs.4,26,810/-. The twelve per cent per annum on the cost of construction accepted by the two authorities below can be safely adopted since I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and findings of the authorities below on this aspect of the case. On this calculation, the fair rent payable will come to Rs.4,268/-per month. This, in my opinion, is the fair rent for the premises in question and the said fair rent is payable from the date of the Rent Controller Application, which is 10-6-1979. 7. With this modification in the fair rent fixed by the authorities below, C.R.P.No.3770 of 1982 is dismissed. C.R.P.No.3769 of 1982 is partially allowed and in other respects, it is dismissed. C.R.P.No.210 of 1983 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in these civil revision petitions. 8. Mr.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the tenant, submits that time may be granted for the tenant to pay the fair rent fixed as on date, since his client will have to pay the fair rent as and from 10-6-1979 onwards. The tenant is granted six months time for paying fair rent at the present rate as and from 10-6-1979 till the end of August 1984. The rent for September 1984 as per fair rent fixed now will be paid within October, 1984.