Judgment :- 1. Both these revision petitions, the first of which is filed by the tenant and the second one is by the landlord, are being disposed of by this common order, because they arise out of the same proceedings for fixation of fair rent under S.4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of premises No. 919, Poonamallee High Road, Madras-84. The landlord has constructed four flats on a plot having an area of 3785 sq.ft. There are two flats on the ground floor and two flats on the first floor with a stair case in the centre going upto the second floor which is merely a terrace. The landlord filed petitions for fixation of fair rent, because according to him the monthly rental of Rs. 200 being paid by the three tenants was inadequate. Three identical petitions against three tenants of the three flats thus came to be filed. The building is described as No. 919, Poonamallee High Road, Madras-84. According to the landlord, he was entitled to Rs. 775 per month, as rent taking into account the value of the land at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground and the cost of construction taken at Rs. 55 per sq.ft. He claimed 15 per cent additional cost for water and drinking facilities and 7-1/2 per cent for electrical installations. The age of the building, according to the landlord, is 21 years. 2. The tenant disputed the extent of the built up area, which according to him was only 806 sq.ft. He wanted the cost of construction to be taken as Rs. 44 sq.ft. the age of the building at 40 years and the value of the land at Rs. 30,000 per ground. 3. Both the parties had engaged engineers who made their inspection reports. The inspection report of the engineer for the tenant, while mentioning that the said premises were situated at No. 919, Poonamallee High Road, Madras, stated that the premises were 500 yards in the interior from Poonamallee High Road. The age of the building was given by him as 30 years, the value of the site at Rs. 45,000 and the plinth area was calculated at 976 sq.ft. He reduced the area of the staircase and the net plinth area was given at 872 sq.ft. Calculating the cost of construction for 872 sq.ft. at Rs. The age of the building was given by him as 30 years, the value of the site at Rs. 45,000 and the plinth area was calculated at 976 sq.ft. He reduced the area of the staircase and the net plinth area was given at 872 sq.ft. Calculating the cost of construction for 872 sq.ft. at Rs. 55 per sq.ft. and working out depreciation on the footing that the building was 30 years old, the depreciated cost of the flat was calculated at Rs. 26,405; the value of the site to the extent of 872 sq.ft. at Rs. 45,000 per ground was calculated at Rs. 8,175; the value of the amenities was added at Rs. 1,729. Thus, according to the engineer the rent had to be determined with reference to the cost of Rs. 35,309, 9 per cent of which came to Rs. 272. 4. The engineer appointed by the landlord followed a different method. He took up the built up area of the entire building consisting of 2,015 sq.ft. of the ground floor and the first floor each and 142 sq.ft. of the second floor and divided this by four to arrive at the built up area of each flat. This figure came to 1,043 sq.ft. He took the age of the building at 21 years. With reference to the position of vantage which the structure of the Poonamallee High Road, occupied, with K.J. Hospital, Hotel Dashprakash, Hotel Blue Diamond and other hotels, nursing homes, educational institutions, nearabout the value of the land was taken at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground. The depreciated cost was worked out by him at Rs. 63,890. Taking the value of the site at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground, he included the value of one-fourth of the total land, that is, 946 sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 39,413 for purpose of computing the total cost of the flat for the purpose of working out the return of nine per cent. The figure came to Rs. 1 03, 303 and the rent for the month on the footing of 9 per cent return came to Rs. 775. The Rent Controller however, calculated the monthly fair rent Rs. 758. He took the value of the land at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground and the plinth area for calculating the cost of construction was taken by him to be 1,043 sq. ft. as calculated by the engineer for the landlord. 775. The Rent Controller however, calculated the monthly fair rent Rs. 758. He took the value of the land at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground and the plinth area for calculating the cost of construction was taken by him to be 1,043 sq. ft. as calculated by the engineer for the landlord. He allowed separate cost for amenities in the form of water supply and drainage at 15 per cent and for electricity at 7 per cent. 5. The landlord did not file appeal against this order because his own case was that he was entitled to the fair rent of Rs. 775. The tenant filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority followed rather an unusual method of calculating the value of land, even though he accepted the figure of Rs. 1,00,000 as a fair value of the land per ground. He took the view that the material portion of the plot of land the value of which could be taken into account for purposes of fixation of fair rent would be proportionate to the plinth area which was calculated by him at 1008 sq. ft. What he did was that out of the 1,043 sq. ft. of plinth area, which was actually in the occupation of the tenant, he reduced one-fourth of 1043, which was the plinth area of the structure on the second floor, and, therefore, proceeded on the footing that 1008 was the plinth area for which the cost has to be worked out. The Appellate Authority worked out the cost at Rs. 55 per sq. ft. and arrived at the total cost of construction at Rs. 55,440. When he came to the determination of the age of the building, he found that according to the landlord the building was 21 years old, while according to the tenants that it was 30 years old. He found fault with the Rent Controller, who has based his findings with regard to the age of the building on the basis of a sanctioned plan which was filed in the connected case against other tenants, HR.C. 4219 of 1981. He took the view that that plan had not been marked in the course of the proceedings pending before him and proceeded to decide that the age of the building at 25 years. Having calculated the cost of construction at Rs. He took the view that that plan had not been marked in the course of the proceedings pending before him and proceeded to decide that the age of the building at 25 years. Having calculated the cost of construction at Rs. 49,602 he found that the value of the land to the extent of Rs. 14,000 could be added in so far as the present tenant was concerned and he therefore worked out the cost at Rs. 63,602. Making an allowance for further amenities he worked out the cost at Rs. 66,782. Calculating the gross retun at the rate of 9 per cent, the Appellate Authority found that the figure would come to Rs. 6,010.38 per annum. The monthly rent, which came to Rs. 500.86 was fixed at a round figure at Rs. 501. To that extent the order of the Rent Controller was modified. Both the tenant and the landlord have now filed revision petitions against this order. 6. The first contention raised on behalf of the tenant is that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the market value of the land could not have been assumed at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground especially when the Appellate Authority had found that the document which was marked in the connected case had not been marked in the instant case. Now it is not in dispute that so far as the technical evidence is concerned, all the three cases of the three tenants were tried together. It was, therefore, not necessary to file documents in each of the three cases, if common evidence was being recorded. The order of the Rent Controller shows that he had dealt with all the three cases taken together and Ex.P4, which was marked in H.R.C. No. 4129 of 1981, which was an identical petition for fixation of fair rent in the case of another tenant was considered by him for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the land. Thus, it appears that both the parties were conscious of the fact that common evidence was being recorded and it was too late in appeal to raise any objection to that course and persuade the appellate Authority from ignoring. Ex.P4 on the basis of which the value of land was ascertained at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground. 7. Thus, it appears that both the parties were conscious of the fact that common evidence was being recorded and it was too late in appeal to raise any objection to that course and persuade the appellate Authority from ignoring. Ex.P4 on the basis of which the value of land was ascertained at Rs. 1,00,000 per ground. 7. The next contention which is raised by the learned counsel for the tenant is that when the cost of construction of a flat is to be determined for the purpose of fixation of fair rent, even though the actual built up area in the occupation of the tenant is ascertained, that built up area cannot be more than the area of land which would be proportionately attributable to the construction occupied by the tenant. The basis of the argument is the method of ascertaining the value of land which is adopted by the Appellate Authority. What the Appellate authority has done is that having found that the tenant is in occupation of 1000 sq.ft. built up area and the value of the total amount was to be computed at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000 per ground, he took into account the fact that there are three flats, namely, the ground, first and second floors and tried to ascertain the proportionate value of the land attributable to each of the tenants. The formula, which it is difficult to justify, used was to multiply Rs. 1,00,000 by the total plinth area and divide the product by three, multiplied by 2,400 sq.ft. which is the area of one ground of land. The figure ’ indicates the three floors of the house. It is difficult to ascertain from this order how the learned Appellate Authority arrived at this formula. On the basis of the formula adopted the total value of land attributable to the flat in question was worked out at Rs. 14,000 which would be value of little less than 400 sq.ft. of land at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000 per ground. The argument now advanced on behalf of the tenant is that on a plot of 400 or 600 sq.ft. there can never be construction having a plinth area of more than 400 sq.ft. and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the plinth area actually in the occupation of tenant is more than 400 sq. ft. 1,00,000 per ground. The argument now advanced on behalf of the tenant is that on a plot of 400 or 600 sq.ft. there can never be construction having a plinth area of more than 400 sq.ft. and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the plinth area actually in the occupation of tenant is more than 400 sq. ft. for purposes of working out the fair rent, the excess area has to be left out. 8. I fail to see any logic in this argument or in the method adopted by the Appellate Authority. It is to be remembered that when a construction is to be put up the permissible plinth area allowed under the relevant rules of the Corporation or the municipality, as the case may be, is a certain proportion, generally one-third or one-half of the total area of the plot. The permissible plinth area is always calculated with reference to the whole building and not with reference to any particular floor. Therefore, the total plinth area for construction available to the owner of the plot, in the present case, the owner of four flats, must necessarily be determined with reference to the area of 3,785 sq.ft. which is the area of the plot. No particular part of the plot can be correlated to any particular flat. The area of the plot of land which will have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the cost of land to be added to the cost of the construction of the flat will, therefore, have to be fictionally determined. Evidence also shows that the surrounding vacant part of the plot is available to the tenants parking place and garden which means that the vacant space is available to all the tenants of the flats for enjoyment. But the fact remains that it would not be possible to demarcate any particular area of the plot with reference to any particular flat the value of which could alone be added to the value of any particular flat. The proper method of computing the cost of construction in a case where the accommodation occupied by the tenant is a flat would be to find out the total cost of construction of the entire building where flats are identical; then the total cost should be divided by the number of flats and this will give the cost of construction of one flat. This method will take into account also the cost of staircase and the structure intended to cover the staircase at the top when the staircase goes upto the terrace. The staircase is an established part of the entire building and usable by several tenants. This method will also take into account the cost of terrace which forms the roof of the last floor of the building. Now when the value of the land is to be added to this cost of construction, the proper method is to ascertain the value of the entire plot of land and divide by the number of flats assuming that the flats are identical and add the proportionate value to the cost of construction of each flat. Where flats are not identical the value could be determined on the basis of the total plinth area by dividing the cost of the land by the total plinth area and then multiplying the result by the total plinth area in the occupation of the tenant. 9. Now, so far as the present case is concerned, it is wholly erroneous to say that there are three floors in the house. The flats are located in the ground and first floors. On the terrace which is described by the Appellate Authority as the second floor there is a built up structure to the extent of 142 sq.ft. If the total area of the ground and the first floors is 1015 sq.ft. it can hardly be said that this structure of 142 sq.ft. constitutes a second floor. Though there is no evidence exactly indicating the nature of this construction, it is obvious that this must be a small construction which is the top portion of the staircase the width of which at the ground floor is 9 sq. ft. The plan on record shows that between the flats, there is a stair-case which goes to the first floor and then also to the second floor. It is the covering over the staircase which constitutes this built up area of 142 sq.ft. ft. The plan on record shows that between the flats, there is a stair-case which goes to the first floor and then also to the second floor. It is the covering over the staircase which constitutes this built up area of 142 sq.ft. If the staircase is a common staircase, then the area occupied by the staircase must be taken for the user of the flats and consequently, in so far as the cost of construction is concerned, the owner of the building is entitled to a return on that cost of construction of the staircase intended for use by the owner of the flats and consequently the cost of construction of the flats will also necessarily include the cost of construction of the staircase including the roof over the staircase. The Appellate Authority was therefore in error, firstly, when it deducted 142 sq.ft. from the built-up area in so far as the tenant was concerned and secondly treating this essential part of the construction as an independent floor. Calculated in that fashion the value of the land would have to be worked out at Rs. 1,00,000, per ground and at that rate the value of site of 3785 sq.ft. will come to Rs. 1,57,708-35, One-fourth of figure will have to be added to the cost of construction of the flat. In so far as the cost of construction of a flat, is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the rate of construction. The dispute is with regard to the plinth area, and, having regard to what I have stated earlier, the total cost of construction would have to be with reference to 1042 sq.ft. and not 1008 sq.ft. as calculated by the Appellate Authority. This cost will come to Rs. 57,365. There can be no dispute with regard to the additional facilities of water supply, drainage, and electrical works which comes to Rs. 8,605. In addition to this, as the Appellate Authority has rightly made provisions for additional amenities in schedule I of the Act to the extent of 5 per cent, the landlord will clearly be entitled to that extent. 10. 8,605. In addition to this, as the Appellate Authority has rightly made provisions for additional amenities in schedule I of the Act to the extent of 5 per cent, the landlord will clearly be entitled to that extent. 10. In so far as the age of the building is concerned, once again the Appellate Authority appears to have fallen in an error and therefore for the same reason for which his order with regard to the document filed in the connected case is set aside, his finding that there is no evidence to show the age of the building will also have to be set aside. There is in the connected case the sanctioned plan of the building which clearly shows that the building was 21 years of age. Accordingly, the age of the buildi ng will have to be taken as 21 years. The determination of fair rent will therefore be as follows:— Cost of construction of the plinth area of 1043 sq. ft. at Rs. 55 sq. ft. : 1043 -5 5 = Rs. 57,365-00 Add 15 per cent basic amenities for water supply, drainage and electricity etc. 8,605-00 Total cost of the building comes to 65,970-00 Depreciation for 21 years at 1 per cent per annunm comes to 12,500-00 The value of the building after depreciation 53,470-00 Land value at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000 per ground for 946 sq. ft. comes to 39,413-00 92,883-00 Add 5 per cent for schedule amenities as allowed by the authorities below. 4,604-00 Total Rs. 97,487-00 The monthly rental would be Rs. 731. 97500 -9-100 = 2925-Rs. 731-25. 11. Accordingly the fair rent is fixed at Rs. 731 per month for the portion of the building in question. 12. The petition filed by the landlord is allowed and the petition filed by the tenant is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in both the petitions.