JUDGMENT :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition(NPD) No.234 of 2011 is filed by the tenant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 16.8.2010 passed in R.C.A.No.1140 of 2006 by the Appellate Authority (VIII Small Causes Court), Chennai, modifying the order dated 11.9.2006 passed in R.C.O.P.No.448 of 2006 by the Rent Controller (XII Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. The Civil Revision Petition(NPD) No.235 of 2011 is filed by the tenant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 16.8.2010 passed in R.C.A.No.1091 of 2006 by the Appellate Authority (VIII Small Causes Court), Chennai, modifying the order dated 11.9.2006 passed in R.C.O.P.No.448 of 2006 by the Rent Controller (XII Small Causes Court), Chennai. 3. The issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is with regard to fixation of fair rent. The tenancy commenced in the year 2005 with the rent fixed at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. Landlord filed RCOP No.448 of 2006 for fixation of fair rent on 22.2.2006 and claimed Rs.27,671/- as monthly rent. 4. On contest, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.14,793/- per month. Challenging the same, the tenant filed appeal R.C.A.No.1091 of 2006 and the landlord filed appeal R.C.A.No.1140 of 2006 seeking higher rent. The appeal RCA No.1091 of 2006 filed by the tenant was dismissed and the appeal RCA No.1140 of 2006 filed by the landlord was partly allowed by enhancing the fair rent to Rs.18,171/-. Challenging the dismissal of the tenant's appeal and the partly allowing the landlord's appeal, two revision petitions have been filed by the tenant. 5. On 21.2.2011, this Court passed an interim order in CRP No.234 of 2011 and it reads as follows:- "4. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, interim stay is granted till 23.03.2011 on condition that the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,75,000/- which is over and above 50% of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also directed to pay the regular rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority from February 2011. If the conditional order is not complied with, the interim stay granted shall stand vacated automatically without any further reference to this Court. 5. Post on 23.03.2011 for reporting compliance." The matter is posted for reporting compliance and compliance is reported. If the conditional order is not complied with, the interim stay granted shall stand vacated automatically without any further reference to this Court. 5. Post on 23.03.2011 for reporting compliance." The matter is posted for reporting compliance and compliance is reported. By consent, both the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 6. The main issue in both the Civil Revision Petitions that requires to be considered is as to whether the fixation of fair rent has been done taking into consideration the relevant parameters applicable for fixing the fair rent. 7. From the findings of the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, it could be seen that the land value has been fixed at Rs.96,50,000/- taking the relevant year as 2006. The build up area is 723 square feet. The age of the building is about 40 years. Type of construction is Type-I. Cost of construction is Rs.350/- per foot. The building is provided with basic amenities. 15% on the total cost of construction was taken towards basic amenities. The depreciation has been worked out at the rate of 1% per year. The above facts are not disputed on either side. On this calculation, there appears to be no serious infirmity. The only serious issue is whether the value of the land at less than a crore for the year 2006 is correct. Ex.P-4 is a documentary evidence, namely, sale deed marked by the landlord to show higher value of the land. The Court has taken a figure by considering the rival claim with regard to land value and balanced it as above. It is neither excessive or grossly undervalued. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to take a different view on value. In respect of other parameters the calculation is not at dispute seriously. There is no serious infirmity in the manner and method of calculation requiring this Court to interfere with the quantum of fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. In any event there is no serious infirmity or irregularity for this Court to interfere on facts or in law. 8. In the result, finding no merits in the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the two Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. In any event there is no serious infirmity or irregularity for this Court to interfere on facts or in law. 8. In the result, finding no merits in the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the two Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, considering the plea made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, six months time is granted from today for payment of balance rental arrears as determined by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.