Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities, fixing the fair rent at Rs.2,634/-. 2. The demised premises is a non-residential shop portion in Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai. The Revision Petitioner is a Tenant in the non-residential premises Mangalore tiled portion, measuring an extent of 264 sq.ft. The Petitioner has been paying the monthly rent at Rs.700/-. Seeking fixation of fair rent at Rs.5,341/-, the Respondent / Landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1562 of 2003 on the file of XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The Respondent / Landlord has also filed Petitions against other Tenants for fixation of fair rent. Fixing the land value at Rs.22,00,000/- per ground, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.2,634/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has filed an Appeal in R.C.A.No.961 of 2004 on the file of VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs.2,634/-was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which is challenged in this Revision Petition. The other Tenants have not challenged the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. 3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 4. The property is situated at Luz Church Road, facing Royapettah High Road near Luz Corner. For calculating the market value of the site, P.W.2 – Engineer was examined and Ex.A.14 – Sale Deed was produced. P.W.2 has estimated the market value of the site at Rs.80,00,000/- mainly on the basis of the Sale Deed Document No.1940/2000. Under the said document, for an extent of 2603 sq.ft., along with the building, the Sale Consideration was Rs.62,53,000/- and the land value alone was calculated at Rs.57,65,352/- since the document was of the year 2000. For the year 2003, when the R.C.O.P was filed, land value was calculated at Rs.80,00,000/-. On the basis of evidence of P.W.2 and his Report, the learned Rent Controller fixed the market value of the site at Rs.22,00,000/- per ground. To substantiate the Sale Deed and to speak about the Sale Consideration quoted thereon, no independent evidence was adduced. Holding that the guideline value cannot form a foundation to determine the market value, in the decision reported in Sakthi & Co., through its Partner ..Vs.. Shree Desigachary ( 2006 (2) C.T.C. 433 ), a Full Bench of this Court has held as under:- "...14. Holding that the guideline value cannot form a foundation to determine the market value, in the decision reported in Sakthi & Co., through its Partner ..Vs.. Shree Desigachary ( 2006 (2) C.T.C. 433 ), a Full Bench of this Court has held as under:- "...14. The methods of valuation for ascertaining the market value, as suggested in the above decisions, are as follows: (1)Opinion of experts. (2)The price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transaction of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages. Evidence of bonafide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing the same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. (3)A number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. 15. It is a settled law, as laid down in the judgments referred to above, that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case. According to the Supreme Court, generally, the second method of valuation is accepted, as the best. This method would furnish the evidence of bonafide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features, which would enable the Court to determine the market value correctly. 16. In view of the above ratio decidendi fixed by the Supreme Court, the fixation of market value on the basis of guideline value or valuation register, summoned from Sub-Registrars Office and the Engineer, is illegal and unsustainable....." 5. P.W.2 – Engineer appears to have estimated the market value of the site mainly on the basis of the Sale Consideration in the document, which might only reflect the guideline value. Fixation of Market value on the basis of guideline value or valuation register is unsustainable. In consideration of the location of the site and the nature of the building (tiled) it would be appropriate to fix the land value at Rs.18,00,000/- per ground. Construction cost of the building after taking depreciation for 80 years Rs. 21,398/- Land cost at Rs.18,00,000/- per ground for 264 sq.ft 264 x 18,00,000/- 2400 Rs. In consideration of the location of the site and the nature of the building (tiled) it would be appropriate to fix the land value at Rs.18,00,000/- per ground. Construction cost of the building after taking depreciation for 80 years Rs. 21,398/- Land cost at Rs.18,00,000/- per ground for 264 sq.ft 264 x 18,00,000/- 2400 Rs. 1,83,000/- Total cost of the building Rs. 2,04,398/- and Land -------------- Monthly rent at 12% 2,04,398 x 1 x 12 ----------------- Rs. 2,044/-12 x 100 Fair Rent Fixed Rs. 2,044/-The fair rent is payable by the Revision Petitioner at Rs.2,044/- per month from the date of Petition i.e., 01.08.2003. The Revision Petitioner is to pay the difference in rent at Rs.1344/-. (Rs.2,044 – Rs.700 = Rs.1344/-). 6. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 011. 2005 of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A.No.961 of 2004 (arising out of R.C.O.P.No.1562 of 2003 on the file XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) is modified and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. The fair rent is fixed at Rs.2,044/- per month. The fair rent is payable by the Revision Petitioner from the date of Petition i.e., 01.08.2003. The Revision Petitioner is to pay the difference in rent at Rs.1344/-. The connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.