Judgment :- 1. These two revisions arise out of an application filed by the petitioner in CRP. No. 4845 of 1987, who is referred to herein as, “landlady” for fixation of their rent, under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The agreed rent was Rs. 225/- per mensem. The landlady claimed a sum of Rs. 750/- as fair rent and filed a petition. The tenant opposed the same. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 396/- per mensem. On appeal by both parties, the rent was increased to Rs. 514/- per mensem by the appellate authority. These two revisions before me are filed by the landlady and the tenant, as both are aggrieved. 3. The property is situate in Triplicane High Road, now known as Quaid-e-millath Salai. It is a non-residential building of an extent of 702 sq. ft. The landlady disputes the findings of the authorities below, on four matters: (1) value of the land (2) age of the building (3) value of amenities and (4) cost of construction. I will deal with them, one by one. 4. Regarding the value of the land, the claim of the landlady is that the market rate of lands in the area is Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground and the authorities should have fixed at that rate. She produced Ex. P3, sale deed of an adjacent property, dated 26.12.1981. The property dealt with in that sale deed comprises of a building and land. The Rent Controller fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground whereas the Appellate Authority fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per ground. The tenant has not filed any documentary evidence. The landlady examined one engineer on her side as P.W. 1 whereas the tenant also examined an engineer as R.W. 2. The Rent Controller referred to Ex. P3 wherein the annual value mentioned is Rs. 5,460/-. He has multiplied it by 20 times, and held that the value comes to about Rs. 1,00,000/- He has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and observed that the said witness had admitted the value of the land and building at Rs. 1,00,000/- and above. The Rent Controller however overlooked that the annual value mentioned in Ex. 5,460/-. He has multiplied it by 20 times, and held that the value comes to about Rs. 1,00,000/- He has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and observed that the said witness had admitted the value of the land and building at Rs. 1,00,000/- and above. The Rent Controller however overlooked that the annual value mentioned in Ex. P3. is only with reference to the extent of land as set out in that document, viz., 405 sq. ft. It for an extent of 405 sq. ft., the annual rental value is Rs. 5,460/-, it is argued by learned counsel for the landlady then, for an extent of 702 sq. ft., the value must be much more than Rs. 1,20,000/- as fixed by the Rent Controller. No doubt, there is considerable force in the argument. But the Appellate Authority has fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per ground. The Appellate Authority has referred to Ex. P4, a statement prepared by the landladys engineer, analysing the value of the land and building in Ex. P3. As per that statement, the value of the land per ground works out to Rs. 2,86,000/-. But the value adopted by the engineer for the petition property is only Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground. The Appellate Authority has proceeded to observe that the Rent Controller was in error in fixing the value at Rs. 1,20,000/- per ground, but arbitrarily fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- per ground. The basis for fixing at Rs. 2,00000/- without accepting either the value adopted by the landlady or the value evident from Ex. P3, is not disclosed. In the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel for the landlady that the value of the land should have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground, is well-founded. In so far as the evidence adduced in this case is concerned, the only reliable evidence is the document under Ex. P3 and as analysed by the landladys Engineer, the rate is Rs. 2,86,000/- per ground. In the circumstances, I accept the contention of the landlady and fix the value of the petition land at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground. 5. With reference to the age of the building, the landladys engineer has estimated the age or the building at 40 years whereas the tenants engineer has estimated the age of the building as 80 years. 2,40,000/- per ground. 5. With reference to the age of the building, the landladys engineer has estimated the age or the building at 40 years whereas the tenants engineer has estimated the age of the building as 80 years. The authorities below have adopted the figure 60 for the age of the building. Nothing has been placed before me to show how the conclusion of the authorities below, is erroneous. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, I am not in a position to interfere with the findings given by the courts below. Hence, the age of the building, is to be adopted as 60 years, as done in the courts below. 6. As regards the amenities, the landlady claimed 22.1/2%, but the courts below have granted only 20%. A perusal of the order shows that there is no error in the order of the court below. I do not accept the contention of the landladys counsel that it ought to have fixed at 22 1/2% and not 20%. There is no material before me to interfere with the conclusion of the court below on this ground. 7. The cost of construction has been worked out at Rs. 70/- per sq. ft., by the landladys engineer whereas the tenants engineer has worked out at Rs. 60/- per square feet. The courts have adopted Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the landlady that it is settled law that cost of construction should be worked out on the basis of Public Works Departments rates. He has produced before me the Mini Technical Hand Book, issued by Association of Engineers and Assistant Engineers of the Tamilnadu, Public Works Department. According to the above Mini Hand Book, the rate in the relevant year, is Rs. 90/- per sq. ft. Learned counsel invites my attention to the judgment of this (Court in I.A. Emberumanar v. K. Ragliavan (1987-T.N.L.J. 307 = 1988-1-L.W. 568). Chief Justice Chandurkar has held that under S. 4 of the Rent Control Act, when fair rent was sought to be fixed, the contemplation of the Act is that the rate fixed by the Public Works Department, as the cost of construction, is relevant factor. Chief Justice Chandurkar has held that under S. 4 of the Rent Control Act, when fair rent was sought to be fixed, the contemplation of the Act is that the rate fixed by the Public Works Department, as the cost of construction, is relevant factor. The learned Chief Justice referred to the Mini Technical Hand Book issued by the Association of Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association of the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department for guidance and held that the rate fixed therein could be adopted for the purpose of fixing the fair rent. 8. In The Collector of Madras, Accommodation Wing, Madras v. A.N. Gajendran , (1988-2-L.W. 49), the same learned Judge has once again referred to the said Mini Hand Book, issued by the Public Works Department. 9. Learned counsel for the landlady contends that though the value adopted by the landladys engineer in arriving at the fair rent for the purpose of of cot of construction was fixed at Rs. 70/- per sq. ft., nothing prevents this Court from fixing at Rs. 90/- per sq. ft., as evident from the Mini Technical Hand Book. Learned counsel submits that fair rent is for the building and the court is not bound by the statements of parties. Reliance is placed on Dovo Tax Company v. T.R. Ramnath (1988-II-M.L.J. 297) and N. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. Controller and Authorised Officer (1988-II-M.L.J. 384 = (1986)99 L.W. 705 ). In the former case, the fair rent claimed by the party was Rs. 1,250/- per mensem. The court found that the fair rent for the building, will be Rs. 1,510/- per mensem and on that basis fixed the fair rent. The court said: “The fair rent is fixed for the building in question in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 1,250/- per mensem. The court found that the fair rent for the building, will be Rs. 1,510/- per mensem and on that basis fixed the fair rent. The court said: “The fair rent is fixed for the building in question in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not fair rent for the landlord or for the tenant, but for the building, and as such, the Rent Controller is free to fix the fair rent as per law untrammelled by the contentions of the parties.” In the latter case, while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raval & Company v. K.C. Ramachandra and others (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 818), a passage therefrom is extracted and the following portion in the said passage as underlined by the learned Judge, is as follows:— “A close reading of the Act shows that the fair rent is fixed for the building and it is payable by whoever is the tenant, whether a contractual tenant or statutory tenant. What is fixed is not the fair rent payable by the tenant or to the landlord who applies for fixation of fair rent, but fair rent for the building, something like an incident of the tenure regarding the building.” 10. Based on the said reasoning, the learned judge fixed the fair rent at Rs. 450/- per mensem though the landlady had mentioned that fair rent would be Rs. 300/- per mensem. In the present case, apart from the Mini Technical Hand Book produced by learned counsel for the landlord, there is an admission by the tenants engineer who has given evidence as R.W. 2. He has stated categorically that he is constructing buildings, and in 1982-1983, the cost of construction was between Rs. 86 and 90/- per sq. ft. He added that it was not the P.W.D. rate. He denied the suggestion that actual cost in that year was Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. Taking into account the evidence of R.W. 2 and the particulars found in the Mini Technical Hand Book, I fix the cost of construction at the rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. ft. 11. It is argued by the tenants counsel that there are three floors in the building, viz., ground floor, first floor and second floor and the fair rent has to be properly apportioned among the three floors. 85/- per sq. ft. 11. It is argued by the tenants counsel that there are three floors in the building, viz., ground floor, first floor and second floor and the fair rent has to be properly apportioned among the three floors. But there is no plea in the counter-statement filed by the tenant to the fair rent application to the effect that there are three floors. For the first time, in the evidence he said that there are three floors. A suggestion was made to the landlady and she has promptly denied the same. There is a categorical statement in the petition that the building consists of only two floors, viz., ground floor and first floor. In the circumstances, the case of the tenant that there are three floors cannot be accepted. Hence the courts below have held on the footing that the building comprises of two floors and fixed the fair rent on that basis. In the circumstances, the fair rent fixed by the courts below is altered. The basis of fixation of fair rent shall be that the land value is Rs. 2,40,000/- per ground. The cost of construction is Rs. 85/- per sq. ft. The parties are directed to file a memo of calculation on the above basis, showing the actual fair rent per mensem. The memo shall be filed on or before 9th March 1994. Civil Revision Petition No. 4846 of 1987 is allowed to the extent indicated above and Civil Revision Petition No. 1234 of 1989 is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. The petition having/been posted this day for being mentioned subsequent to the order of this Court, dated 4.3.94 and made herein, in the presence of the aforesaid advocates, the court made the following order:— This matter is being posted today on the filing of the memo of calculation by the petitioner. As directed by me in my order dated 4.3.1994 the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition has filed a memo of calculation. The respondent has not filed any memo. Nor has he filed any objection to the memo filed by the petitioner. According to the said memo, the fair rent will work out to Rs. 707/- per month. The said amount is fixed as fair rent for the petition premises with effect from 10.9.1082.