Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decrees dated 11.2.2008 passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCA Nos.1072 and 1634 of 2003 modifying the order dated 20.8.2003 passed by the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, in RCOP No.1096 of 2002, these civil revision petitions are focussed by the tenant. 2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revisions would run thus: (a) The respondents herein filed the RCOP as against the revision petitioner/tenant for fixing the fair rent in respect of a non-residential building situated at Anna Salai, Chennai. The matter was contested by the revision petitioners/tenants. (b) On the side of the respondents/landlords, one Chellaiha Sarathy was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the revision petitioner/tenants side, one H.B.Jaggi was examined as R.W.1 along with Azeez Mohideen as R.W.2 and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. (c) Ultimately, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.67,884/-. (d) As against the said order, the tenant as well as the landlords preferred separate appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1072 and 1634 of 2003. At the appellate stage, Exs.R8 and R9 were marked. (e) The appellate authority, after hearing both sides enhanced the fair rent from Rs.67,884/- to Rs.84,520/-, thereby partly allowed the appeal preferred by the landlords and dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the tenant preferred these two revisions, setting out more or less identical grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (i) The appellate authority without objectively deciding the matter, simply enhanced the rent by taking into account the land value per ground of 2400 sq.ft in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs, whereas, the Rent Controller earlier fixed it in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. (ii) The tenants documents Ex.R8 and R9 would cumulatively show that per ground during the year 2002 was sold for a sum of Rs.37,34,400/-and that property is situated very adjacent to the demised premises, but the appellate authority simply rejected the said documents on the ground that they were not reflecting the true value. However, without adhering to any objective standards, the appellate authority fixed the value per ground in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs and that too after not relying upon Ex.P2. 4. However, without adhering to any objective standards, the appellate authority fixed the value per ground in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs and that too after not relying upon Ex.P2. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, placing reliance on the grounds of revisions would develop his arguments, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: (i) Exs.R8 and R9 are reflecting the true value of the land as at it stood at the time of filing of the RCOP, but without assigning any reason, the appellate authority rejected the same. (ii) The appellate authority, without adhering to any formula simply fixed the value per ground in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that absolutely there is no reason for enhancing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller by the appellate authority. In fact, the Rent Controller himself fixed the fair rent on the higher side, as against which, only the tenant preferred the appeal, but that was dismissed. As such, the learned counsel prays for allowing both these revisions filed by the tenant. 5. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The appellate authority taking into account the fact that the demised premises is situated just abetting Anna Salai, arrived at the conclusion that the Rent Controller was not justified in fixing the land value in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs per ground and that too without adhering to Ex.P2, which shows higher value even in the year 1999. (ii) Exs.R8 and R9 by no stretch of imagination could be taken as genuine documents reflecting the true value of the ground for the reason that the properties covered by those documents are abetting State Bank Road, which is a side road, branching from Anna Salai, whereas, the demised premises is facing Anna Salai and Ex.P2 would evince and evidence that even in the year 1999 per ground was worth more than Rs.70 lakhs. As such, the appellate authority correctly fixed the value in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs per ground, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. As such, the appellate authority correctly fixed the value in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs per ground, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. The points for consideration are as under: (i) Whether the appellate authority was justified in enhancing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and also in dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant. (ii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. At the outset itself I would like to point out that it is just and necessary to have a clear idea about Ex.P2 relied on the side of the landlords and Exs.R8 and R9 relied on the side of the tenant. 8. Ex.P2 is a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1999 relating to an extent of 95.94 sq.feet of undivided share in a property situated adjacent to the demised premises, abetting Anna Salai. The actual value of the said small extent of 95.94 sq.feet was quantified in a sum of Rs.2,86,200/-during the year 1999. Accordingly if calculated, per ground measuring 2400 sq.ft. the value comes to Rs.71,59,474/- 9. Exs.R8 and R9 dated 27.1.2002 are relating to two portions of one whole property situated at the State Bank Road, which is branching from Anna Salai. However, the property covered under those sale deeds are adjacent to the demised premises even though not facing Anna Salai. According to those two sale deeds, the value per ground of 2400 sq.ft. was Rs.37,34,400/-. 10. In these factual scenario it has to be found out as to what should be the criteria for fixing the land value in respect of the demised premises as on the date of filing of the RCOP in the year 2001. 11. Ex.P2 emerged almost three years anterior to the filing of RCOP and in such a case, it cannot be stated that that document was brought about by the landlords purely for the purpose of boosting up the land value of the demised premises etc. However, Ex.R8 and R9 even though emerged hardly six months anterior to the filing of the RCOP, yet the value per ground is shown as Rs.37,34,400/-, so to say, just half of the value per ground, as contemplated in Ex.P2, which emerged more than three years anterior to the emergence of Exs.R8 and R9. However, Ex.R8 and R9 even though emerged hardly six months anterior to the filing of the RCOP, yet the value per ground is shown as Rs.37,34,400/-, so to say, just half of the value per ground, as contemplated in Ex.P2, which emerged more than three years anterior to the emergence of Exs.R8 and R9. As such, certainly anyone would look askance at the genuineness of the value found set out in Exs.R8 and R9 and in my considered opinion the Courts below were just and proper in rejecting the value as found set out in Exs.R8 and R9, warranting no interference in revision. 12. The question arises as to how far Ex.P2 can be relied on. The Rent Controller in my opinion objectively analysed the matter, whereas, the appellate authority, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenant, in paragraph No.27 of his judgement without assigning any reason simply fixed the value per ground in a sum of Rs.70 lakhs and no formula also found adopted for arriving at such a conclusion. 13. Whereas, the Rent Controller discussed in detail at paragraph No.28 of his judgment as to how the Court cannot take for gospel truth the value as found set out in Ex.P2 relating to a small extent of ground. The common sense principle adopted by the Rent Controller is quite appreciable for the reason that in certain areas if the ground is large, the value will be less and if the ground area is small, the value will be more. Incommensurate with that, the Rent Controller fixed the value during the year 1999 per ground at Rs.50 lakhs, which is acceptable. However, while considering the appreciation in value, taking into account the lapse of three years period between the date of emergence of the sale deed-Ex.P2 and the filing of the RCOP, the Rent Controller gave only a marginal notional increase and fixed the value at Rs.55 lakhs per ground. 14. The learned counsel for the landlords would submit that after slashing down the value from Rs.71,59,474/-, as found in the sale deed Ex.P2, to Rs.50 lakhs, for appreciation in value, the Court should not be so stringent in giving notional value in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, but it should have been more. 14. The learned counsel for the landlords would submit that after slashing down the value from Rs.71,59,474/-, as found in the sale deed Ex.P2, to Rs.50 lakhs, for appreciation in value, the Court should not be so stringent in giving notional value in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, but it should have been more. However, the learned counsel for the tenant would stick to his own stand that the property was not capable of fetching any price more than what was found set out in Exs.R8 and R9. 15. In this connection I recollect and call up the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court relating to land acquisition matters that the Court has got the right to notionally give 10% increase regarding appreciation in value of the land per year. Accordingly, if worked out the value per ground would be more. 16. By way of striking a balance between the two, I am of the view that 5% amelioration per year could be given for three years. Accordingly, if worked out it comes to Rs.57,88,125.00. In my opinion, this procedure now adopted by this Court is on a stronger footing. 17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would submit that the matter could be remitted back to the appellate authority for once again analysing the matter and the parties also will have additional opportunity to search for documents, if any, and producing the same before the Court concerning value of the land during the year 2002. 19. During the pendency of the revision, this Court also gave some time to to the parties find out as to whether any better evidence is available, so as to take into consideration the new facts if any. However, both sides could not produce any other document. Apart from the dispute relating to the land value, there is no other dispute concerning other factors involved in assessing the fair rent. 20. In these factual circumstances and in view of the ratiocination adhered to by me supra, by remanding the matter to the appellate authority no purpose would be served and that would amount to trying to catch a black cat in a dark room. 20. In these factual circumstances and in view of the ratiocination adhered to by me supra, by remanding the matter to the appellate authority no purpose would be served and that would amount to trying to catch a black cat in a dark room. Hence, this Court being a revisional Court could very well interfere and rectify the small error committed by the Rent Controller and also rectify the mistake committed by the appellate authority by assessing the value per ground in a sum of Rs.57,88,125/-and rounding it to Rs.58 lakhs. Accordingly, the monthly fair rent shall stand re-fixed as under: The ultimately assessed valueof the building and amenities of the premisesRs. 5,18,378.00 Value per ground - Rs.58,00,000.00 The land area concerning the demised premises is 2736 sq.ft Value of 2736 sq.ft: 2736 X 58,00,000/- = Rs.66,12,000.00 2400 Total value of land and building:Rs.71,30,378.00 Since the petition premises is a non-residential building, annual return is calculated at 12% which is Rs.71,30,378/- X 12 Rs.8,55,645/- 100 Monthly Rent:Rs.8,55,645.00 ----------------- = Rs.71,303.75 21. In the result, the civil revision petitions are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.