Judgment :- The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed challenging the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority at Rs.4,692/- per month for the petition mentioned non-residential premises from the date of the filing of the Rent Control Original Petition. 2. The landlady, the first respondent herein filed the Rent Control Original Petition for fixing fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in respect of the petition non-residential premises occupied by the revision petitioner as tenant. The petition premises is about 1250 square feet and the same was taken on lease to run Lorry Booking Office-cum-Godown in the name and style of "M/s.Shenbagam Lorry Service" on a monthly rent of Rs.725/-. The premises is situated in a very busy locality in Kamarajar Salai, Madurai Town which is highway leading to Ramanathapuram and Rameswaram and it is in the heart of the city. It is also very near to East Veli Street which links the entire city with several highways. It is also nearer to Thirumalai Naicker Palace, Bus Stand and Railway Station and surrounded by number of High Schools, Post Offices, Kalyana Mandapams, Hotels, Lodges, Cinema Theatres and Meenakshi Amman Temple. The market value of the site is not less than Rs.600/- per square foot. The building is first class pucka building constructed with burnt bricks and cement mortar. The flooring of the building is with cement mortar and the ceiling is provided with Madras Terrace roofing. The building is with electric connection and other necessary amenities. Therefore, according to the landlady, fair rent would work out to Rs.4,000/- per month to the petition premises. 3. The petition was opposed in the counter admitting the tenancy and the quantum of rent, but denying the other facts such as petition premises is situated in the heart of the Madurai Town and in close proximity to the places mentioned in the petition. According to the tenant, the market value of the site cannot be more than Rs.5/- per square foot. The building is very old and more than 50 years and there is no amenities in the premises. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the younger brother of the landlady's husband was examined as P.W.1, besides P.Ws.2 to 4 and the Manager of the tenant Lorry Company was examined as R.W.1. The building is very old and more than 50 years and there is no amenities in the premises. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the younger brother of the landlady's husband was examined as P.W.1, besides P.Ws.2 to 4 and the Manager of the tenant Lorry Company was examined as R.W.1. Considering such oral evidence adduced on either side and Exs.C-1 to C-3 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, the learned Rent Controller worked out the fair rent at Rs.5,715/- per month. In the Rent Control Appeal, Ex.X-3, P.W.D. cost of construction has been marked and the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller is modified and fixed at Rs.4,692/-. The judgment is challenged by the tenant in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the area of the petition premises as arrived at by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority at 1611 square feet as against 1250 square feet as claimed by the landlady, is improper. As regards the value of the site arrived at by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority at Rs.250/- per square foot on the basis of the guideline value, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, cannot said to be proper, in that the said guideline value is adopted by the Registration Department for the purpose of collecting stamp duty. Then it is contended that the market value of the land arrived at by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority accepting the evidence of P.W.3 is also not correct. The value of the amenities fixed at Rs.5,000/- by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is also incorrect, in that it should be only Rs.2,420/- as per the Public Works Department estimate. The age of the building fixed at 22 years is also not proper since the building is more than 50 years old. In this regard, the learned counsel also pointed out that in fact, the petition property was settled to the landlady as early as 1971. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the decision in Srinivasa Gounder – vs. - K.Venkatesan reported in 1997-3 Law Weekly 193, in which, this Court has held in paragraph 6:- "The market value of a property cannot be decided simply on the basis of valuation report or building plan. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the decision in Srinivasa Gounder – vs. - K.Venkatesan reported in 1997-3 Law Weekly 193, in which, this Court has held in paragraph 6:- "The market value of a property cannot be decided simply on the basis of valuation report or building plan. It has to be fixed on the basis of sale transactions more or less in the same locality having similar advantages, by a willing purchaser from a willing vendor." In the above decision it is also held:- "Evidence must be let in by examining the persons concerned with the sale deed or the transactions." In the above decision it is further held that the value fixed by the Government for the purpose of stamp duty has no relevance as held in 1996-2 Law Weekly 637 (Rahmath Fathima, T.H.S., - vs. - T.K.Kader Mohideen). 6. The learned counsel for the landlady, the first respondent herein argued that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, since no other evidence is available, considering the guideline value, accordingly fixed the site value at Rs.250/- per square foot and it does not require any change. The age of the building and the other factors in determining the fair rent, according to the learned counsel for the landlady, has been rightly decided by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority taking into consideration the report and plan Exs.C-2 and C-3 of the Engineer P.W.2 and the report of the advocate-commissioner Ex.C-1. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority considering the report of the Engineer P.W.2 marked as Ex.C-2, rightly fixed the area of the petition premises at 1611 square feet though it has been stated in the Rent Control Original Petition at 1250 square feet, since the Engineer only after measuring the property has stated so. 7. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, since there is no other evidence to arrive at the land value, adopted the guideline value which is maintained by the Sub Registrar's Office and accordingly stated that the land value is to be fixed at Rs.250/- per square foot since the guideline value is less than the market value as held in N.Sulaiman – vs. - Ravichandran reported in 1995 T.L.N.J. 226 and on that basis, the guideline value has been adopted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority taking into consideration Ex.X-3, marked as per order in I.A.No.279 of 1998 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz., P.W.D. cost of construction fixed the cost of construction at Rs.720/- per square metre. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also allowed Rs.5,000/- towards water pipe connection, drainage facility and water tank and another sum of Rs.830/- for the cement flooring in the terrace of 16.6 square feet (16.6 x 50 = Rs.830/-). Further taking into consideration that the building was reconstructed with cement in 1967, accordingly fixed the age of the building at 22 years and finding that the construction of the building is of Type 3 of Schedule II (Section 4) of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, allowed depreciation at 2% and fixed cost of net construction at Rs.66,478/- and in that way the fair rent has been fixed at Rs.4,692/- per month. 8. Though it can be said that the guideline value will be less than the market value, it is unsafe to rely on the guideline value fixed by the Registration Department mainly for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. It is settled as per the judgment of this Court referred to above (1997-3 Law Weekly 193 in Srinivasa Gounder – vs. - K.Venkatesan) in approving the earlier judgment of this Court reported in 1996-2 Law Weekly 637 (Rahmath Fathima, T.H.S., - vs. - T.K.Kader Mohideen) that the market value of the property has to be fixed only on the basis of sale transaction in that locality and not on the basis of guideline value fixed by the Government for the purpose of stamp duty and as such Ex.X-1 being the guideline value has no relevance to fix the fair rent for the petition property. Inasmuch as both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority taking into consideration of the guideline value of the Registration Department, Ex.X-1 arrived at Rs.250/- per square foot, it cannot said to be proper, and hence the matter is to be remitted back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for the purpose of fixing the correct market value and on that basis, the fair rent for the petition premises has to be fixed. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.107 of 1994 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on receipt of the records shall restore the appeal to its file and after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence especially with regard to the sale transaction in the locality to fix the site value and to decide the matter afresh. Both parties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 20.4.2004. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is further directed to dispose the appeal by September, 2004. No cost. Consequently, the petition in C.M.P.No.10595 of 1999 is closed.