Judgment :- The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. I.A. No. 10061 of 1980 was filed under S. 9(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act to purchase the suit land. A Commissioner was appointed to determine the value of the suit land. The Commissioner determined the value of the suit land at Rs. 90,000/- per ground. The suit land is situate at Old door No. 15, New No. 5 Byram Jung Bahadur Second Lane, General Patterns Road, Madras-2. The extent of the land is 1452 sq. feet. The trial court determined the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2 lakhs per ground. On appeal, the appellate court determined the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per ground in accordance with the report filed by the Commissioner. It is against this order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the value of the land should be determined at Rs. 3 lakhs per ground, as claimed by the petitioner before the trial court. The learned counsel submitted that the orders passed in H.R.C. No. 3783 of 1979 filed as Ex. R-1 dated 31.10.1980 would go to show that the value of the land will be Rs. 3 lakhs per ground. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit land is situate in a highly commercial area and in a very important business locality. The lane in which the suit land is situate is in between the Mount road, and General Patters Road. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale instance as pointed out by the tenant in Ex. P1 dated 26.2.1981 relates to a property situate in Kalimanpuram, which is a slum area. Therefore, it cannot be a comparable sale to determine the value of the land. According to the learned counsel, the average market value of the suit land from the year 1982 till 1985 should be taken into consideration. The learned counsel further pointed out that according to the decision of this court in 93 Law Weekly 392, the crucial date for determining the value of the land would be the date on which the extent of the land was determined. 3. The learned counsel further pointed out that according to the decision of this court in 93 Law Weekly 392, the crucial date for determining the value of the land would be the date on which the extent of the land was determined. 3. Therefore according to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that the suit land is situate in a busy commercial area where automobile spare parts business is flourishing and considering the locational advantage in which the suit land is situate, the value of the land should be determined as claimed by the land owner. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted as under:— The appellate court was correct in adopting the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per ground. The sale instance as pointed out by the petitioner herein is situate opposite to General Post Office Building at Mount Road. Therefore, it cannot be a comparable sale. It was further submitted that the suit land is situate in a narrow blind lane. The sale instance as pointed out by the land owner in Exhibit P1 dat ed 26.2.1981 is a composite sale. The petitioner herein has no evidence to support the claim that the land value would be Rs. 3 lakhs per ground or atleast Rs. 2 lakhs per ground as determined by the trial court. Without any basis, and without any discussion the trial court arbitrarily fixed the value of the land at Rs. 2 lakhs per ground. The Commissioner taking into consideration of all the relevant facts determined the value of the land per ground at Rs. 90,000/-. In such circumstances, the first appellate court was correct in adopting the value as determined by the Commissioner. The date on which the value should be determined would be 1.1.1981, which is the date of joint endorsement made by the parties. It was therefore submitted that the lower appellate court was correct in determining the value as per the Commissioners report. 5. I have heard the rival submissions. 6. The fact remains that the suit land is situate at No. 5, Byram Jung Bahadur Second Lane, General Patters Road, Madras-2. The extent of the land is 1452 sq. feet. The owner of the land submitted that the value of the land would be Rs. 3 lakhs per ground. 5. I have heard the rival submissions. 6. The fact remains that the suit land is situate at No. 5, Byram Jung Bahadur Second Lane, General Patters Road, Madras-2. The extent of the land is 1452 sq. feet. The owner of the land submitted that the value of the land would be Rs. 3 lakhs per ground. The tenant submitted that the value of the land should be determined at the rate of Rs. 20,500/- per ground. The tenant produced a copy of the sale deed, Exhibit P1 dated 26.2.1981. This sale deed relates to a property situate at Kalimanpuram, which is a slum area. The land owner produced Ex. R1 dated 31.10.1980 a xerox copy of the order passed in H.R.C. Nos. 3783 & 3784 of 1979. Exhibit R2 is dated 25.1.1981. It is a certified copy of the order passed in H.R.A. No. 849 & 850 1981 and R.C.A. Nos. 975 & 976 of 1981. According to the order passed in H.R.C. Nos. 3783 & 3784 of 1979, the Rent Controller fixed the market value of the land for the purpose of determining the fair rent at Rs. 3,00,065/- per ground. The said property is situate just opposite to Mount Road Post Office. Before the appellate court one document dated 20.3.1985 and another document dated 26.9.1982 were filed. A compilation report of the Engineer dated 20.1.1986 was also filed. Both these documents were rejected by the appellate court for the simple reason that they relate to the period after the valuation date. This approach is not correct. Because, the relevant date for determining the value of the land would be the date on which an order was passed determining the minimum extent of land required by the tenant. This is the view expressed by this court in M. Arasan Chettiar & Others v. Sri S.P. Narasimhalu Naidus Estate Trust, Coimbatore Rep. By the Manager and Executor C.M. Abbai Naidu Rep. By the Secretry B. Ramamurthy, Advocate 1 93 L.W. 392. This is the view expressed by this court in M. Arasan Chettiar & Others v. Sri S.P. Narasimhalu Naidus Estate Trust, Coimbatore Rep. By the Manager and Executor C.M. Abbai Naidu Rep. By the Secretry B. Ramamurthy, Advocate 1 93 L.W. 392. In the above said decision, it was held that “The expression date of the order occurring in the third sentence in S. 9(1)(b) must mean the date on which the court decides the minimum extent of the land, which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant.” According to the facts arising in the present case, the minimum extent of the land was determined by the court on 1.5.1982. Therefore three years average must be calculated on the basis of this date. If that is so, the two above said documents rejected by the appellate court are also relevant for determining the value of the land in the present case. 7. The facts remains that Exhibit P1 produced by the tenant relates to the property situate in a slum area and therefore it will serve no purpose. The value of Rs. 3,00,065/- determined in a Rent Control Proceedings under S. 4 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act relates to a property situate opposite to Mount Road Post Office. Therefore, this would also render no assistance. According to the document dated 20.3.1985, property No. 27 at Begum Street was sold for Rs. 89,906/- per ground. The value determined by the Commissioner is not based upon any particular document. It is only an approximate estimate. The first appellate court proceeded on the basis that the date of filing the suit in the year 1979 would be the valuation date and entirely depending upon the report filed by the Commissioner determined the value of the land. This is also not correct. All the documents filed by the parties are relevant in the matter of determining the value of the suit land. Ex. P1 and R1 were rejected on the ground that they do not reflect the correct market value as on the valuation date. According to the sale, which took place on 20.3.1985 at No. 27, Begum Street a ground was sold for Rs. 89,906/-. This is very near to the suit property. Ex. P1 and R1 were rejected on the ground that they do not reflect the correct market value as on the valuation date. According to the sale, which took place on 20.3.1985 at No. 27, Begum Street a ground was sold for Rs. 89,906/-. This is very near to the suit property. But this street is not that much commercially important as that of Byram Jung Bahadur Second Street, where motor spare parts business is flourishing. Further it is also opposite to Midland Theatre. 8. The sale instance that took place in Begum Street on 20.3.1985 appears to be a comparable one. Considering this aspect, and the locational advantage in which the suit land is situate, I consider that the proper average market value of the land between 1982 and 1985 would be Rs. 1,50,000/- per ground. Accordingly, I determine the value of the suit land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per ground. The lower court is directed to adopt the same. The respondent herein is directed to deposit the balance within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the respondent is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 9. In the result, the values determined by the courts below are set aside and the revision is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.