Judgment :- Challenging the Order in R.C.A.No.157/1996, fixing fair rent at Rs.11,915/-, landlady has preferred this revision. Whether Appellate Authority was justified in reducing the fair rent from Rs.18,601/- fixed by the Rent Controller to Rs.11,915/-, is the point falling for consideration in this revision. 2. Demised premises is No.1, Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Chennai-28, now D.No.7, Turn Bulls Road Extension, Nandanam, Chennai-35. The building was constructed at an extent of 4 grounds and 400 sq.ft. The property was originally owned and possessed by Petitioners mother. She let out the above said premises to M/s.Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd., for the purpose of using the premises as Guest House and so, the tenancy was residential in nature. Contractual rate of rent was Rs.3,000/- p.m. During her life time, Petitioners mother filed Petition under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, the Act] in R.C.O.P.No.974/1991 for fixation of fair rent at Rs.27,055/-. Petitioner has pleaded that the premises is located in a posh residential locality, close to Chamiers Road, which connects Mount Road at Nandanam Signal and the rent paid for the premises is very low. 3. Respondent resisted the Petition contending that present rent paid at Rs.3,000/-is fair rent. Respondent also alleged that it has made improvements to the premises and the Respondent has imputed motives against the Petitioner for filing Petition. 4. Both Petitioner and the Respondent have adduced oral and documentary evidence and examined Engineers on their respective side. In consideration of evidence, the Rent Controller has found that all basic amenities are available in the building and allowed 15% towards basic amenities. On the basis of Ex.P-5 -Sale Deed, land value was taken as Rs.10,00,000/- per ground. On the basis of the building value, value of the site and amenities, Rent Controller has fixed fair rent at Rs.18,601/-. .5. Appellate Authority reduced fair rent to Rs.11,915/-. No reasonings or figures are given for reducing the fair rent. Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the cost of building. On the basis of Ex.R-6 - Guideline value, Appellate Authority fixed land .value at Rs.6,00,000/- per ground and only on the basis of value of ground, rent was fixed at Rs.11,915/-. 6. Assailing the Order of Appellate Authority, the learned Counsel for the landlord argued at length contending that Appellate Authority erred in taking Ex.R-6-Guideline value as the basis. On the basis of Ex.R-6 - Guideline value, Appellate Authority fixed land .value at Rs.6,00,000/- per ground and only on the basis of value of ground, rent was fixed at Rs.11,915/-. 6. Assailing the Order of Appellate Authority, the learned Counsel for the landlord argued at length contending that Appellate Authority erred in taking Ex.R-6-Guideline value as the basis. Submitting that guideline value cannot be the basis for fixation of land value, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon Full Bench decision reported in 2006(2) CTC 433 [Sakthi & Co., through its Partner Vs. Shree Desigachary and 2001(3) MLJ 396 [Susainathan & another Vs. T. Vijayan]. It was further submitted that Rent Controller has rightly fixed land value at Rs.10,00,000/- per ground and Appellate Authority erred in reducing the same to Rs.6,00,000/-. 7. Challenging the maintainability of the Petition, the learned Counsel for the Tenant has submitted that tenancy has been determined even as early as in 1992 and landlord cannot continue to main the Petition for fixation of fair rent. It was submitted that on the basis of Ex.R-6-Guideline value, Appellate Authority has rightly fixed value of the land at Rs.6,00,000/- per ground. The learned Counsel further argued that the Rent Controller erred in allowing amenities twice, both in cost of construction and in market value of the land. Tenancy is not disputed. Premises of 4 grounds and 400 sq.ft. or 10,000 sq.ft. and built up area are not in dispute. Contractual rate of rent at Rs.3,000/- is also not disputed. 8. First contention of Tenant is, after institution of fair rent Petition in 1991, landlady has filed R.C.O.P.No.70 /1992 for eviction and eviction was ordered. Appeal filed in R.C.A.No.445/1984 and C.R.P.No.2210/1996 filed before the High Court and Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court were also dismissed. Subsequently, Tenant vacated the premises and delivered possession on 312. 1997. Further’s it is contended that tenancy was determined even as early as in 1992. Jural relationship no longer subsisted and hence, application for fixation of fair rent has become infructuous. .9. The above contention has no force. Petition for fixation of fair rent was filed way back in March 1991. Notwithstanding vacating the premises, Tenant is bound to pay fair rent from the date of Petition till the date of vacating the premises. Jural relationship no longer subsisted and hence, application for fixation of fair rent has become infructuous. .9. The above contention has no force. Petition for fixation of fair rent was filed way back in March 1991. Notwithstanding vacating the premises, Tenant is bound to pay fair rent from the date of Petition till the date of vacating the premises. Having fought out the Eviction Petition upto the level of Supreme Court, it is not open to the Tenant to raise objection regarding maintainability of the fair rent Petition. 10. As per Sec.4 of the Act, fair rent of the building shall be made by considering the following three ingredients viz. - "(1)Cost of the site in which the building is constructed. (2)The cost of construction of the building, and (3)The cost of provision of any one or more of the amenities specified in Schedule I as on the date of application for the fixation of fair rent." Determination of fair rent has to be in accordance with the principles set out in Sec.4 and not limited to estimation by landlord or Tenant. 11. Order of Appellate Authority – Non-application of mind:- Even at the outset, it is to be noted that the Order of Appellate Authority is very cryptic. Value of land was taken as Rs.10,59,250/- [for 4237 sq.ft.]. 7% was allowed for amenities. Total value was calculated at Rs.15,88,654/-. Appellate Authority has not shown the split up figures as to how the building value was arrived at. There is no proper application of mind for fixation of fair rent in terms of essential ingredients under Sec.4 of the Act. 12.In the appeal filed on the ground that quantum of fair rent is higher, Appellate Authority ought to have independently considered the matter. It is the duty of the Appellate Court to consider oral and documentary evidence on record. It would not be sufficient to merely state that the finding of the Rent Controller is erroneous. Before confirming or setting aside or modifying fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority should apply his mind while disposing of the appeal. In my considered view, the Appellate Authority was not justified in reducing the rent without assigning valid reasons. It would not be sufficient to merely state that the finding of the Rent Controller is erroneous. Before confirming or setting aside or modifying fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority should apply his mind while disposing of the appeal. In my considered view, the Appellate Authority was not justified in reducing the rent without assigning valid reasons. Since Appellate Authority has passed a cryptic Order, without discussing evidence and merits of the case, to satisfy as to correctness and reasonableness of fair rent fixed by Rent Control Authorities and for that limited purpose re-appraisal of evidence has become necessitated. .13. Cost of construction :- .In a Petition for fixation of fair rent, cost of construction can be taken into consideration for fixing the fair rent. Public Works Department rates are only guidelines and it need not be the basis for fixing the fair rent. Value of building is to be arrived at on the basis of type of building, age of building, extent of built up area and cost of construction. The entire bungalow – 4 grounds, 400 sq.ft. or 10,000/- sq.ft. was occupied by Tenant for being used as Guest House – residential purpose. The bungalow is located in a posh locality. The tenanted premises is an independent bungalow with portico, garage, servants quarters, garden etc. and vacant land around the building. Chamiers road which connects Mount Road at Nandanam Signal is only few yards from the tenanted premises. Schools, market, five star hotel and clubs are within short distance from the premises. Adyar Boat Club is also very near to the tenanted premises. 14. Admittedly, the building is Type I building, with ground floor and first floor. Building is Architecture designed building. The building has all basic amenities like electricity, water supply with well water, corporation water with sump, sanitary installations. Apart from main building, there is also servants quarters and garage. Rent Controller fixed cost of construction at Rs.6,16,988/-, which is inclusive of 15% of amenities. Building is aged 23 years. 1% depreciation was allowed. On the evidence of PW-2-Engineer and his report Ex.P-1, Rent Controller fixed the cost of construction, after allowing depreciation at 1%, and arrived at the value of the building at Rs.4,89,271/-. That finding is based on evidence and materials on record and the same cannot be interfered with. .15. Building is aged 23 years. 1% depreciation was allowed. On the evidence of PW-2-Engineer and his report Ex.P-1, Rent Controller fixed the cost of construction, after allowing depreciation at 1%, and arrived at the value of the building at Rs.4,89,271/-. That finding is based on evidence and materials on record and the same cannot be interfered with. .15. In 100 LW 846 [Bombay Tyres International Ltd., Madras Vs.Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., Madras] the Court has held as: "in the case of fixation of Fair Rent, judicial notice must be taken of the fact that cost of construction and cost of materials, which have to be used for the construction of a building including the fittings for water supply, sanitary fittings as well as for making electric installations have always been escalating and are considerably high. Therefore, having regard to the prevailing high level of cost of materials used for construction of a house there has to be a realistic approach in the matter of estimating the cost of construction and cost of making amenities available. .Therefore it cannot be said that the increase of the percentage from 10 per cent to 15 per cent as awarded by the Appellate Authority for amenities is so excessive which should be interfered with in revision". In the case in hand, the Building has some amenities apart from being architectural design. Value of the building and allowing 15% for amenities cannot be said to be excessive. .16. Market value of the site :- .Market value of the site on which the building is constructed is also to be taken into consideration while fixing fair rent. While computing the market value of the site, the following two factors are to be taken into account viz., (i)portion of the site on which building is constructed; (ii)portion upto 50% thereof the built up area. Remaining 50% of the vacant land is to be treated as amenity. .17. In 1989 (2) MLJ 213 [Lodha Vs. Renganathan], Full Bench of this Court has held as follows: - ."If there is any vacant land, appurtenant to such building, and its extent is in excess of the built up extent carving out of its fifty per cent of the built up extent, to be added to the built up extent, for calculating the market value of the site, the residue of the vacant land has to be treated as amenity". 18. 18. As per the decision of the Full Bench, 50% of the built up area i.e. 1,412 sq.ft. has to be added to the built up extent for calculating the market value of the site. Both Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have rightly taken the extent 4,237 sq.ft. for calculating the market value of the site. The question falling for consideration is what is the value of the site? .19. PW-2-Engineer has calculated the value of the site at Rs.12,00,000/- per ground. Tenant has produced Ex.R-4-Sale Deed [13.03.1992] in respect of property No.66, C.P. Ramasami Iyer Road, Madras. Tenant has also produced Ex.R-5 Analysis of cost of land and building as per Sale Deed-Ex.R-4. As per Exs.R-4 and R-5, cost of land per ground was calculated at Rs.9,77,883/-. Appellate Authority has fixed the land value at Rs.6,00,000/- mainly on the basis of Ex.R-6 - Guideline value and evidence of RW-3 – Assistant employed in the Central Sub-registrars office, Chennai. RW-3 has stated that as on 01.04.1991, guideline value was Rs.6,00,000/- per ground. Fixing of value of land at Rs.6,00,000/-, on the basis of guideline value is erroneous. Time and again Courts have held that the value fixed by the Government for the purpose of Stamp duty and guideline value has no relevance for determination of the market value. Transaction between a willing purchaser and willing seller alone will form the basis. 20. Holding that guideline value contained in basic valuation register maintained by Revenue Department or Municipality cannot form basis for determination of market value, in 2006 (2) CTC 433 [Sakthi & Co. through its Partner, Veeranan Vs. Shree Desigachary], Full Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "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 bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing 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. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing 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 bona fide 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.... 17.... 18.Therefore, our conclusions are as follows : (1)The guideline value, contained in the Basic Valuation Register, maintained by the Revenue Department or the Municipality for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, has no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. (2)Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine the market value. In this case, the guideline value alone has been considered, which, in our view, is illegal. (3)The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in the present case, are not right in relying upon the guideline value, maintained by the Revenue Department, for arriving at a fair rent, to be fixed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960". In view of the Full Bench decision, fixation of market value on the basis of Ex.R-6 Guideline value is illegal and unsustainable. 21. Ex.P-4 is the Sale Deed dated 30.03.1992 relating to property in Bishop Mathias Street. Under Ex.P-4, an extent of 4 grounds 1,820 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.86,00,000/-. As per Ex.P-4, market value per ground is around Rs.15,00,000/-. However, Rent Controller fixed market value of the site at Rs.10,00,000/-per ground and the same cannot be interfered with. 21. Ex.P-4 is the Sale Deed dated 30.03.1992 relating to property in Bishop Mathias Street. Under Ex.P-4, an extent of 4 grounds 1,820 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.86,00,000/-. As per Ex.P-4, market value per ground is around Rs.15,00,000/-. However, Rent Controller fixed market value of the site at Rs.10,00,000/-per ground and the same cannot be interfered with. Market value of site is to be arrived at for the extent of 4,237 sq.ft. [2,825 + 1,412]. Balance 5,763 sq.ft. is to be treated as amenities. Schedule I has 17 amenities. Rent Controller has allowed 15% of cost of building as amenities for arriving at the cost of building. The learned Rent Controller has allowed 10% for Schedule I amenities, for valuation of site under Section 4(4) of the Act. On behalf of the Tenant, it was contended that under the proviso to sub-section 4 of the Act, cost of amenities should not exceed 15%, in case of residential building and in this case Rent Controller has added amenities -15% + 10%, which is unsustainable. It was further submitted that of the 17 items of amenities under Schedule I of the Act, there are only 7 items of the said amenities in the building and the Appellate Authority has rightly fixed amenities at 7%. The contention that the Rent Controller has erroneously added amenities twice in cost of construction and in value of the site is unsustainable. Under Section 4(4) of the Act, total cost of building shall consist of market value of the site, in which the building is constructed, cost of construction of the building and the cost of provision of any one or more of the amenities, specified in Schedule I. As per proviso to Sec.4(4), while calculating market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the controller shall take into account portion of the site at which building is constructed and on portion up to 50% of the built up area and excess portion of the vacant land being treated as amenity. 22. Holding that legislature has intended to include those amenities twice, in 1978(2) MLJ 444 [Mathuramadoss Gandhi Vs. 22. Holding that legislature has intended to include those amenities twice, in 1978(2) MLJ 444 [Mathuramadoss Gandhi Vs. Venkitaramier], Court has held, "Amenities such as air conditions, lifts, electric fans, tube lights, number of electric points, fans, ventilators, electric pump or water, flush outs fixed, wash basins, stair cases, out houses, cattle sheds, garden or vacant land appurtenant to the building enjoyed by the Tenant will also be included in the cost of the building as allowances. But many of these amenities would be taken into account in determining the market value of the building. The legislature in the determination of the cost of the building for arriving at the fair rent, enacted that these allowances should be included twice as part of the component (1) and again as part of the component; (2)in Sec.4(1)(4)". It is thus clear that some of the amenities are included twice for fixation of value of building as well as value of land. 23. As noted earlier, for basic amenities like electricity, water supply, sanitary installations, Rent Controller has added 15% of value of building to arrive at cost of construction. Building is Architectural designed building with mosaic glazed tiles in bathroom, compound wall, garden etc. which are Schedule I amenities. That apart, vacant land appurtenant to building is yet another amenity available. For Schedule I amenities, Rent Controller has fixed 10% of market value and the same is in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sec.4 of the Act. 24. Fixation of fair rent at Rs.18,601/- by the Rent Controller is in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sec.4 of the Act. Without proper appreciation of evidence, Appellate Authority has reduced the fair rent to Rs.11,915/- and the same cannot be sustained. Considering the scope of revision under rent control proceedings, in 1996 (6) SCC 222 [Shivsarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta], Supreme Court has held, "The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Sec.25-B(8) is not so limited as is under Sec.115 CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a Court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the Order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law". The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a Court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the Order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law". For that limited purpose it may enter into reappraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on a wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray a lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller "not according to law" calling for an interference under the proviso to Sub-Sec.(8) of Sec.25-B of the Act. A Judgment leading to a miscarriage of justice is not a Judgment according to law. [See Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance co., ltd., 1998 (8) SCC 119 ; Ram Narain Arora Vs.Asha Rani – 1999 (1) SCC 141 ]. 25. Order of Appellate Authority reducing rent to Rs.11,915/- is unjust and the same is to be set aside restoring Order of Rent Controller. 26. In the result, Order of Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.157/96 is set aside. Fair rent fixed at Rs.18,601/- by the Rent Controller is confirmed. This revision is allowed with cost.