Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ Landlord filed the R.C.O.P.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller Court, Mayiladuturai under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act for fixation of fair rent and after contest the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.10,651-92 per month and rounded off to Rs. 10,650/-per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petitioner filed an appeal with the delay of 730 days and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the contractual rent was Rs.650/- and without any rhyme or reason the learned Rent Controller enhanced the rent to Rs.10,650/-without properly appreciating the market value of the site on which the building was constructed and the cost of construction and without providing for depreciation and the respondent/ landlord had also taken possession of the property pursuant to the eviction order passed in the Rent Control Petition filed by the respondent/ landlord and the respondent/ landlord filed the suit for recovery of rent based on the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller and considering all these aspects, an opportunity may be given to the revision petitioner to file the appeal and challenge the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that in the counter filed in the fair rent application, no details have been furnished by the revision petitioner regarding the market value of the site or the cost of construction and during the trial also no evidence was let in by the revision petitioner about the market value of the site and the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the document filed by the respondent/ landlord fixed the market value and cost of construction and arrived the fair rent and that cannot be challenged in appeal as no particulars were given by the revision petitioner to reduce the fair rent. He therefore submitted that no purpose will be achieved by the revision petitioner in getting the revision allowed and in the absence of any materials furnished by him, the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller cannot be set aside. 4. He therefore submitted that no purpose will be achieved by the revision petitioner in getting the revision allowed and in the absence of any materials furnished by him, the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller cannot be set aside. 4. Having regard to the fact that the possession was taken over by the respondent/ landlordand the landlord also filed the suit for recovery of the rent, in my opinion, the Court below ought to have taken a lenient view in condoning the delay. No doubt, in the counter no materials were furnished by the revision petitioner about the market value of the property and no evidence was also let in by him. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence available before the Court, the learned Rent Controller has fixed the market value at Rs.10,650/-. However, with a view to give one more chance to the revision petitioner to agitate their right in the appeal. 5. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is prepared to deposit substantial amount towards rent, in my opinion, interest of justice would be met by directing the revision petitioner to calculate the rent at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month from the date of petition till June 2008, the date on which the delivery was taken and deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the revision is allowed. In the event of failure on the part of the revision petitioner to deposit the said amount the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority shall stand restored. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to consider the Rent Control Appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court or the amount fixed by this Court, within a period of three months thereafter. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.