Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed against the common Judgment dated 12.3.2004, made in RCA.Nos.598 and 662 of 2002 in RCOP.No: 154 of 2000, passed by the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, modifying the order dated 17.6.2002 made in RCOP.No; 154 of 2000 passed by the learned XI Judge, Small Causes court, Chennai.) Common Order: The revision petitioners are the tenants. The Landlord filed the RCOP.No:154 of 2000 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.28,579/= per month. The learned Rent Controller after going through the relevant records and considering the submissions made by the respective counsel, fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.16,039/= per month. As against the said enhancement, the tenant preferred appeal in CMA.No:598 of 2002 and the landlord also preferred a CMA for further enhancement of the rent in CMA.No:662 of 2002. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai while dismissing the appeal preferred by the tenant, allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord enhancing the rent at Rs.19,201/=. As against the same, both these revisions are filed by the tenants. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants contended that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the age of the building the cost of construction per square foot and the built up area occupied by the tenants and other material aspects while depreciating the cost of the construction, particularly when the same were disputed by the tenants. So also the fixing of the land value at Rs.25 lakhs per ground is only on surmise and not based on any evidence. Moreover the sale deeds Exs.P.4 and P.6 have not been proved in the manner known to law, besides they cannot be taken as yardsticks to decide the value of the petition premises. According to the learned counsel both the authorities have not accepted the Engineer's report or evidence, but have fixed the fair rent on surmises. Thus fair rent cannot be fixed on any concession by the parties or their witnesses as held in several decisions. 3. There was no dispute as to the construction cost, age, nature of building, and depreciation of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, only the built up area, amenities and ground value were in dispute before the learned Rent Control Authority. 3. There was no dispute as to the construction cost, age, nature of building, and depreciation of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, only the built up area, amenities and ground value were in dispute before the learned Rent Control Authority. On a consideration of the evidence of the parties both the authorities rightly arrived at the conclusion that 8% is to be given for amenities like, electricity, water and drainage connection. Likewise, as regards constructed area, both the authorities on an elaborate consideration of the exhibits filed by either side particularly Exs.P.3, D.3,D.4 and 5 sketches and also the oral evidence of the parties, have concurrently held that on the ground floor the Madras Terrace portion is 1312 sq.ft., country tiled portion is 278 sq.ft., and on the first floor the Mangalore tile roofed portion is 90 sq.ft., and G.I.Sheet roofed portion is 620.5 sq.ft., and Madras Terrace portion is 494 Sq.ft., Such finding of fact supported by evidence is not liable to be interfered. 4. Ultimately, the main challenge as to the enhancement of ground value from Rs.20/= lakhs per ground to Rs.25/= lakhs by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, it could be seen that the learned Rent Control Authority while taking note of the sale deeds under Exs.P.4 and P.6 and the analysation reports Exs.P.5 and P.7. As per said sale deeds the land value have been figured as Rs.51,45,888/= and 72,16,000/= respectively by giving 10% increase in annual value. On the other hand in D.2 sale deed the value is given as Rs.13,61,538/= per ground. The properties which have been sold under the said exhibits are situate Mint Street, Narayana Mudali Street, and Paramasivam Chetty Street at Park Town respectively. The petition property is situate at No.2, Genguraman Street, Park Town, Chennai-3 and therefore, the documents of sale relied on by either side cannot be taken into consideration as reflecting the correct market value. The guideline value of the petition premises area is Rs.627/=. If so, the guideline value o the property is Rs.15,04,800/=. But taking into consideration of the surrounding advantages for the petition premises, viz., Narayana Mudali Street, Mint Street and NSC Bose Road, where hectic commercial activities is being carried on by running of several wholesale shops, godowns by the traders, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly fixed the ground value at Rs.25/= lakhs. But taking into consideration of the surrounding advantages for the petition premises, viz., Narayana Mudali Street, Mint Street and NSC Bose Road, where hectic commercial activities is being carried on by running of several wholesale shops, godowns by the traders, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly fixed the ground value at Rs.25/= lakhs. While arriving at such value, the learned authority has also considered some of the disadvantages viz., the narrow street where heavy vehicles would not freely move. 5. In this respect the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of this court in K.Ramanathan and another V. B.K.Nalini Jayanthi, reported in 1996 (II) CTC 700 (DB) in support of his contention that burden of proof is on the landlord to establish market value of site, cost of construction of building and cost of provision of amenities as on date of application for fixation of fair rent and evidence is necessary to prove location of site, proximity, nearness to the developed areas, frontage etc., and mere production of sale deed is insufficient unless evidence are placed before court that lands covered by sale deeds are similar in nature and character to lands on which building is situated. In the said decision, speaking for the Division Bench, AR.Lakshmanan,J., as he then was, held as follows:- "30. To determine the fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, evidence in each case is absolutely necessary. It will not be possible for any Court to have an idea about the relevant factors, viz., location of the site, proximity, nearness to the developed areas, frontage, situation, etc., etc., in any case, merely on the basis of sale deeds pertaining to some lands in the locality. Even the particulars contained in a given case are sufficient to prove the nature and character of the lands, dealt with therein, there must be evidence before the Court to the effect that the lands are similar in nature and the character of the lands dealt with in such sale deeds, and those documents could be taken into consideration for fixing the fair rent for any residential or non residential building. If a party rests content with producing some sale deeds and if there is no material before the court, the sale deeds cannot be taken into account by the Court for determining the market value. If a party rests content with producing some sale deeds and if there is no material before the court, the sale deeds cannot be taken into account by the Court for determining the market value. Therefore as held by the Supreme Court in Inder Singh V. Union of India, 1993 (3) SCC 240 and Gulzara Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 1993 (4) SCC 245 referred to supra, persons connected with the sale transactions or the attesting witnesses should be examined in order to prove the transactions as well as the factors referred to therein. The burden of proof is always on the landlord to prove in each case the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the cost of construction of the building and the cost of provision of anyone or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I as on the date of application for fixation of fair rent. Under Section 64 of the Evidence Act, documents must be proved by primary evidence except in cases mentioned in Section 65 of the Evidence Act." 6. In the present case, the parties to such sale deeds have not been examined. But in most of the cases, it is the usual practice that during registration, the properties would be either undervalued to reduce stamp duty or inflated for loan purposes and such sale deeds cannot be taken as reflecting the correct value. Therefore it is incorrect to state that that the contents of a sale deed should be a conclusive proof. In such circumstances, the courts are empowered to exercise judicial discretion by taking into consideration the relevant factors viz., location of the site, proximity to commercial area, nearness to the developed areas, narrow street etc., etc., and in the present case, the learned Rent Control Authority after taking into consideration of all these aspects, rightly fixed the ground value at Rs.25 lakhs per ground with which, I am not inclined to interfere. 7. 7. As regards CMP.No:5427 of 2006, which is filed by the tenant to direct the landlord to pay the arrears of water tax and sewerage tax of Rs.65,229/= is concerned, admittedly, the tenant informed the landlord as early as on 12.7.2005 about the visit of the corporation officials and their threat to cut of the drainage and water connection if arrears were not paid, for which, the landlord addressed letters on 14.7.2005 about the illegality of enhancement of annual value for the petition premises from 2/1998-99 and for rescinding of the same and thus the landlord was well aware of the impending disconnection by CMWSS Board, yet he allowed the same to be carried out by not paying the arrears of Rs.65,229/=. Since both the authorities below have concurrently held that the premises has metro water and drainage facility as basic amenities accepting the case of the landlord, based on which the fair rent has been fixed by them, which facilities have been denied and deprived of to the tenant pending these CRPs, the tenant is entitled for deduction for such amenities on and from the date of such disconnections. Though it cannot be concluded that there is collusion between the CMWSS officials and the landlord, yet it is only for the reason for non payment of the arrears of charges, the amenities have been cut off and the landlord has thus caused such amenities to be cut off or withheld which was enjoyed by the tenant. But, according to the landlord he is pursuing the mater with the Corporation officials and if there is no proper response he would take necessarily legal action. He could have paid the arrears with protest and restored the amenities and he may take legal action later or he could have permitted the tenant to pay the arrears and deduct the same in the monthly rents. But without doing so, he allowed the disconnection and was responsible for the amenities being cut off or withheld by him as provided under Sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the Rent Control Act. 8. But without doing so, he allowed the disconnection and was responsible for the amenities being cut off or withheld by him as provided under Sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the Rent Control Act. 8. A reading of the provisions of Section 17 would make it clear that the tenant is entitled to complaint about such cut off or withheld by the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings and the Rent Controller shall pass an interim order either for restoration by the landlord or permitting the tenant to restore and the cost of the expenses incurred by the tenant may be recovered from landlord in the rent payable. Therefore, as regards the deduction for such amenities during the period for which they are being cut off, the tenant is entitled for deduction of 8% viz., Rs.59,430/= of the value of the building for the period during which such amenities are being deprived of, which amount could be adjusted in the future rents or in the Civil Suit which is pending for payment of arrears of fair rent, as the case may be. 9. In this respect it would be pertinent to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General Traders ( 1975 (1) SCC 770 ) and Variety Emporium Vs. VRM Mohd.Ibrahim Naina ( 1985 (1) SCC 251 ) wherein their Lordships have held that subsequent events after institution of the proceedings shall be taken note of by examining and evaluating those events and mould the reliefs accordingly by giving appropriate directions. 10. In the circumstances both the CRPs are dismissed confirming the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, liberty is granted to the tenant to move the Rent Controller to file an application for restoration of the basic amenities as provided under Section 17 of the Rent Control Act, who shall after making an enquiry pass appropriate orders. 11. Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed with the above observations. No costs.