Judgment :- 1. The first respondent in CRP NPD No.4095 of 2010 filed R.C.O.P.No.560 of 2004 before the Rent Controller, Chennai, which contained the following allegations in short: 1. (a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of the house and ground measuring 1838 sq.ft., situated at premises No.7, 'A' Block, T.S.No.5 (Part), Block No.22, M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai-10. He purchased the said property from one L.Joseph vide registered Sale Deed dated 30.3.1995. The respondent/revision petitioner herein was a tenant under the petitioner in the said premises, occupied entire portions on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The petition premises is situated in a commercial cum residential area, from where the highways, internal roadways and railways can be easily assessed. 1. (b) The building is a type I building, provided with basic amenities like water supply, sewerage and electricity and the respondent enjoying all these amenities. Taking into consideration of the location, are, the nature of the building and other particulars the rent of Rs.500/- paid by the respondent is very meager and the fair rent for the petition premises will easily be around Rs.35,000/-. When the petitioner made arrangements to inspect the property with the help of qualified engineer, the respondent refused to permit him inside the premises for the purpose of inspection and valuation and hence the petitioner filed this petitioner for fixation of fair rent on the basis of adhoc figures. The fair rent for the premises works out to Rs.30,960/-on the basis of calculation and the fair rent may be fixed for the petition premises under the occupation of the respondent as Rs.30,960/-. 2. In the counter filed by the respondent/revision petitioner, it is stated as follows: 2. (a) The respondent emphatically denies the various contents found place in the petition, except that those which are specifically admitted . It is not true that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. It is not correct to say that the petition premises is adjacent to Poonamallee High Road, Circular Raod, Koyambedu Market, Koyambedu Express Bus Stand and Industrial ares. Further it is not correct to state that the premises is situated in a place from where the highways and internal roadways and railways can be easily assessed. 2. (b) The building is not 20 years old and the same is not type I building. Further it is not correct to state that the premises is situated in a place from where the highways and internal roadways and railways can be easily assessed. 2. (b) The building is not 20 years old and the same is not type I building. The petitioner only to harass the respondent claims Rs.35,000/-as fair rent, whereas admittedly present rent is only Rs.500/- per month. The respondent denies the version that he has refused to permit the petitioner's engineer when he made his visit to inspect the building. 2. (c) On 23.09.1998 the petitioner and the respondent have entered into a sale agreement relating to the petition premises, where the petitioner agreed to dispose the petition premises to the respondent for a sum of Rs.8.5 lakhs and having received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- through demand draft, so instead of execute sale deed, the petitioner filed eviction petition against the respondent before the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, where the Judge ordered him to pay the rent. Now the respondent is intend to initiate proceedings under Specific Performance Act, he has issued Legal Notice to the petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner has replied. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has no right to claim fair rent from the respondent. Further, as per the possession was given to the respondent. So the petitioner has no legal right to claim exorbitant amount and that the petition may be dismissed with exemplary cost. 3. After analysing the pleadings, evidence and exhibits the learned X Judge, Small Causes at Chennai, allowed the petition fixing fair rent at Rs.19,595.86 per month. 4. Aggrieved against the order of trial Court, the respondent/revision petitioner herein has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.559 of 2005 before the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes at Chennai, in which he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in M.P.No.672 of 2008 for receipt of additional documents on his side. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.672 of 2008, the petitioner/tenant is averred as under: 4. (a) The petitioner filed R.C.A.559 of 2004 challenging the fair and decretal order dated 3.3.2005 passed in R.C.O.P.No.560 of 2004 by the learned X Small Causes Judge, Chennai for fixing the fair rent. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.672 of 2008, the petitioner/tenant is averred as under: 4. (a) The petitioner filed R.C.A.559 of 2004 challenging the fair and decretal order dated 3.3.2005 passed in R.C.O.P.No.560 of 2004 by the learned X Small Causes Judge, Chennai for fixing the fair rent. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.2045/2002 on the file of the XI Small Causes Judge, Chennai and the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 13.11.2003 has negativated the case of the respondent on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved against the order the respondent preferred R.C.A.No.161 of 2004, that both appeals are pending, that the petitioner had claimed high rights in both the petitions under sale agreement and disputed the relationship of Landlord-Tenant between parties, that both parties were originally tenant under L. Joseph, that the evidence let in, in the above proceedings are subject matter of decision rendered in R.C.O.P.No.2045 of 2002 and the reason for the learned Rent Controller regarding the plea of the respondent for seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default, that these facts were suppressed in the petition for fixation of fair rent filed by the respondent, that though the parties had addressed to the same in evidence, the Rent Controller has drawn wrong influence on the nature of proceedings between the parties. 4. 4. (b) The proceedings referred in R.C.O.P.No.2595/92 is between the petitioner and the said L. Mariadoss, but the learned Rent Controller has drawn wrong inference to conclude this is implied admission on the part of the petitioner jural relationship by filing petition to deposit rent, which has nothing to do with the respondent, that the learned Rent Controller had adverse to R.C.O.P.No.2595/92 though the same has not been referred to in the pleadings of the parties in R.C.O.P.No.560 of 2004 to draw the using inference that the said proceedings were between the parties to this appeal and to conclude that the said proceedings can only mean that the respondent be admitted jural relationship is on face of it unsustainable, that when the parties to the proceedings were aware of their respective case, when there was no denial of the factum and nature of proceedings, the conclusion drawn by the learned Rent Controller against the petitioner has caused serious miscarriage of justice and therefore it has become necessary to file the present petition to adduce documentary evidence by way of additional evidence relating to fair and decretal order of R.C.O.P.No.2595/1992 and R.C.O.P.No.2045/2002 dated 18.8.1993 and 13.11.2003 respectively alongwith documents filed by the parties herein in the said R.C.O.P. No. 2045/2002 which is the subject matter of Appeal in R.C.A.No.161/2004 and that it has therefore become necessary to adduce the following documentary evidence as additional evidence: 1. Fair rent and decretal order dated 13.11.20903 in R.C.O.P.No.2045/2002 and chalan for Rs.24,500/- with copy of demand draft payment to respondent. 2. Documents and pleadings filed by the parties in R.C.O.P.No.2045 of 2002 and 3. Deposition of respondent in O.S.No.4700/2004 together with chalan vide B.R.No.302 bearing Receipt No.255 dated 13.12.2004 depositing Rs.4,50,000/- being balance sale consideration as per order in I.A.No.15499/04 in O.S.No.4700/2004, and order the petition as prayed for. 5. In the counter filed by the respondent it is alleged as follows: 5. Deposition of respondent in O.S.No.4700/2004 together with chalan vide B.R.No.302 bearing Receipt No.255 dated 13.12.2004 depositing Rs.4,50,000/- being balance sale consideration as per order in I.A.No.15499/04 in O.S.No.4700/2004, and order the petition as prayed for. 5. In the counter filed by the respondent it is alleged as follows: 5. (a) The petition for adducing additional evidence before the appellate court in the appeal by the petitioner is not maintainable in law and on facts, that the documents are all xerox copies of certified copies and they are not relevant for the decision of the above appeal filed against the fixation of fair rent, that the petitioner has not assigned any reason why the same had been filed and in what way they are required in the above appeal, that document no.4 is the xerox copy of certified copy of the deposition given by him in O.S.No.4700 of 2004 which is neither admissible nor relevant, that depositions are in the form of an affidavit, it is inadmissible in evidence under Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the petitioner miserably failed to satisfy the ingredients contemplated under Sub Rule-1(a) & 1(aa) of Order XL Rule-27, that the petitioner has not shown any reason as to why the same was not produced before the trial Court, that the petitioner is not entitled to cure the lacuna at the appellate court that too in a very causal manner and that the above petition to receive the additional documents is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with lock, stock and barrel. 6. After the enquiry, the learned Rent Controller viz., the learned X Judge, Small Causes at Chennai, has fixed fair rent for the premises at Rs.19,596 per month. This revision petitioner/tenant carried the matter in appeal in R.C.A.No.559 of 2005. The Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirmed the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller and hence the tenant has preferred this Revision before this Court. Pending this revision, after a long time when the revision was posted for final hearing and at the midst of arguments of both sides, the tenant/petitioner filed a revision in C.R.P.No.2563 of 2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed in M.P.No.672 of 2008. 7. Pending this revision, after a long time when the revision was posted for final hearing and at the midst of arguments of both sides, the tenant/petitioner filed a revision in C.R.P.No.2563 of 2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed in M.P.No.672 of 2008. 7. This revision petitioner had filed suit in O.S.No.4700 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit came to be dismissed on 13.11.2006. He preferred appeal in A.S.No.1115 of 2007 before this Court and the respondent/landlord had preferred another appeal in A.S.No.1030 of 2007 and the arguments in both appeals as well as in the above revision petitions were heard together and a common judgment has been passed in both appeals and a common order on both CRPs are passed today separately. 8. The points which have arisen for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether C.R.P.No.2563 of 2012 has to be allowed? 2. Whether the fair rent for the demised premises as fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on 12.10.2009 on the facts of the case are sustainable? 3. To what relief are the parties entitled to? Point No.1 9. Even though R.C.A.No.559 of 2005 and M.P.No.672 of 2008 were dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Court on the same day i.e., on 12.10.2009, by means of separate orders, the plaintiff had not chosen to prefer revision from the order passed in M.P.No.672 of 2008, but he filed C.R.P.No.4095 of 2010 challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the fair rent as fixed by the Rent Controller. 10. In the affidavit filed along with M.P.No.672 of 2008, it is alleged that the pleadings in R.C.O.P.No.2045 of 2002 filed by the defendant for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises are very much essential in the present proceedings i.e., in R.C.A.No.559 of 2005 and the depositions of both parties are also necessary for the conduct of the Rent Control Appeal and without the aid of the fair and decretal order in R.C.O.P.No.2045 of 2002 passing of adverse order has caused miscarriage of justice. The entire order was passed on the basis of adverse inference drawn by the learned Rent Controller which is strange and has caused miscarriage of justice. The entire order was passed on the basis of adverse inference drawn by the learned Rent Controller which is strange and has caused miscarriage of justice. The deposition of respondent in O.S.No.4700 of 2004 is only to substantiate the above and hence the evidence ought to be received for adjudication of the Rent Control Appeal. 11. In the counter, it is stated that allegations in the application are denied by the defendant, that the documents sought to be received in additional evidence are not admissible in evidence particularly the same are all xerox copies of certified copies. Besides, the said documents are not relevant for the decision of the appeal filed against the fixation of fair rent. The plaintiff has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements contemplated under Sub-Rule 1(a) and 1(aa) of Order XL Rule 27. They are neither admissible in evidence nor required for the purpose of pronouncing judgment or for any other substantial cause. The plaintiff has not shown any reason as to why the same was not produced before the trial Court and he is not entitled to cure the lacuna at the Appellate Court in a later stage. He has not stated as to how the additional documents are necessary for the adjudication of the issues involved in the Rent Control appeal and hence the application has to be dismissed with lock stock and barrel. 12. Depsite the spite of petition in M.P.No.672 of 2008 was dismissed along with R.C.A.No.559 of 2005 on the same day, i.e. 12.10.2009, the plaintiff had slept over for about 3 years and at the close of arguments in appeal suit and civil revision, he came forward to file C.R.P.No.4095 of 2010 under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. When a party has got a statutory right to file an appeal (or revision) it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227. Even if a remedy by way of an appeal or revision has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a subordinate court or tribunal, the remedy available is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C and hence such a remedy is not available to a party invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India The petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for having preferred the C.R.P. after a long time. There was no embargo for him to prefer statutory revision before this Court within the time stipulated and without such revision, the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be entertained in the absence of establishing of want of jurisdiction of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and miscarriage of justice. 13. It is seen that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is a single line order without taking any discussion as to the pleadings of both parties. But the propriety of the order challenged can only be canvassed in a revision to be preferred by the plaintiff in a statutory revision. It is well settled principle that contentious issues of facts could not be decided by the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. This Court cannot transform to a Court of appeal and to indicate the errors or facts reportedly committed by the Court or Tribunal below. In these circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the revision is not maintainable. 14. Considering the merits of the matter also, it is stated in the counter that the additional documents are xerox copies of certified copies. In these circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the revision is not maintainable. 14. Considering the merits of the matter also, it is stated in the counter that the additional documents are xerox copies of certified copies. No credence could be attached to xerox copies of documents and they could not be received in evidence in the absence of explanation for the non-production of original documents. The application has not set out the reasons for his failure to produce these documents at the time of trial of original suit. Further, the present RCOP is for fixing of fair rent alone. In what way these documents would aid the Court to reach a definite conclusion with regard to the dispute existing between the parties. In the considered view of this Court, the application for receipt of additional document is not tenable and the order dismissing the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The CRP is liable to be dismissed. This point is answered as above. Point Nos.2 and 3 15. The main stress of the Revision Petitioner is that he had entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent on 23.9.1998 with respect to the demised premises in which the landlord had agreed to sell the same to this Revision Petitioner for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, that an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-was paid and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid on a subsequent date, i.e. on 14.7.1999 and that he filed suit for Specific Performance of Contract against the landlord in O.S.No.4700 of 2004. After the dismissal of the suit he preferred A.S.1115 of 2007 and the same is pending, that in pursuance of the sale agreement, as a part performance of contract the landlord put him in possession of the suit premises from the date of sale agreement and he has been in possession of the property in the capacity of sale agreement holder and not in the capacity of 'tenant' and hence he is not liable to pay rent to the respondent and that the claim of the respondent is not legally and factually justifiable. 16. 16. Today this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent by means of a common judgement and as on date it is the position that the revision petitioner has been continuing in possession of the demised premises not as a sale agreement holder but as a tenant and this Court has taken up an elaborate discussion in the Common Judgment in the appeals turning down the claim of the revision petitioner that he is entitled for specific performance of contract. In this factual back drop of the case, this revision has to be proceeded on a fact that the petitioner is tenant in the demised premises. 17. In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner has elaborately furnished the events which have transpired during the pendency of appeals. He has levelled allegations against the Presiding Officer of II Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai who passed judgment in O.S.No.4700 of 2004 and another senior most judicial officer Mr. Mohideen Pitchai. Respondents 2 to 4 in this revision subsequently impleaded as parties, who are none other than sons of the said judicial officer Mr. Mohideen Pitchai. Both the judicial officers Mr. Mohamed Isath Ali, the then II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and Mr. Mohideen Pitchai retired on superannuation already. The Revision Petitioner has expressed his grievances in the grounds of revision that the suit property was purchased by respondents 2 to 4 on 18.2.2008 from the respondent/landlord. The revision petitioner would also plead in the grounds of revision that there had been collusion between the landlord and the above said Presiding Officers in contesting the cases. 18. Adverting to the merits of the present revision petition, this Court has to unearth the facts from the oral testimonies of the Engineers examined who had inspected the demised premises and filed their reports with reference to the value of the building, amenities, etc., 19. The engineer, CW1 who inspected the demised premises on 20.10.2004 in the presence of his assistant, advocate for landlord and the tenant. The premises is consisting of two constructed floor, one is ground floor and another is first floor. In the second floor a small thatched shed was present. In the ground floor 2 residential portions and in the first floor one residential portion have been constructed. The premises is consisting of two constructed floor, one is ground floor and another is first floor. In the second floor a small thatched shed was present. In the ground floor 2 residential portions and in the first floor one residential portion have been constructed. As per the sale deed dated 30.3.95, the extent of the premises is 1838 sq.ft. His report is Ex.C.2. It is in his report and evidence that the premises is situate in prome locality viz., M.M.D.A. Colony in Arumbakkam and that hospitals, banks, market, M.M.D.A. bust terminus, post office and police station are also nearby. His calculation in Ex.C.2 is as follows: "CALCULATIONS: Built-up plinth area in G.floor : (1344 + 148.5) = 1392.5 sft @ Rs.349 = Rs. 4,85,982 Built-up plinth area in First floor (RCC): (1322 + 251) = 1573 sft @ Rs.314 = Rs. 4,93,922 Built-up plinth in II floor a] Thatched shed:568 sft @ Rs.100/sft. = Rs. 56,800 b] A/C Sheet bedroom:103 sft @ Rs.233 = Rs. 22,969 c] FOL (RCC): 18.8 sft @ Rs.320 = Rs. 6,016 = Rs.10,65,689 ADD 15% for Basic Amenities = Rs. 1,59,853 = Rs.12,25,542 Depreciation @ 1% for 21 years (0.8097) (Rs.12,25,542) = Rs. 9,92,355 LAND VALUE Based on local enquiries in ascertained as Rs.30 lacs/ground here. G.Floor site are 1836 sft – (34' x 54') Rs.30,00,000 --------------- x 1,836 sft = Rs.22,95,000 2,400 Cost of construction + Land value together = Rs.32,87,355 Rs.9,92,355 + Rs.22,95,000 ADD 5% for schedule-I Amenities = Rs. 1,64,367 Total cost = Rs.34,51,722 Fair Rent @ 9% per Annum for Residential purpose per month = Rs. 25,887/-" The above said calculation is self-explanatory with regard to the valuation for each item. 20. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and an engineer as R.W.2 who also inspected the premises on 23.4.2005. He prepared a report which is marked as Ex.R.5. In his oral testimony and report he has stated about the valuation of the premises with reference to each aspect. The calculation as done by R.W.2 is as under: "I. FAIR RENT CALCULATION FOR ENTIRE PREMISES: G.F. RCC Roof, 1390 Sq.ft. @ Rs.349/sq.ft = Rs. 4,85,110/- F.F. RCC Roof = 1570 sq.ft @ Rs.314/sq.ft. = Rs. 4,92,980/- S.F. A.C.Sheet 105 s.f.ft. @ Rs.223/sq.ft. = Rs. 23,415/- S.F. Toilet (RCC) 18 sq.ft. @ Rs.320/sq.ft. = Rs. 5,760/- Thatched shed at second floor L.S. = Rs. 8,000/- Rs.10,15,265/- Basic Amenities 15% Rs. @ Rs.349/sq.ft = Rs. 4,85,110/- F.F. RCC Roof = 1570 sq.ft @ Rs.314/sq.ft. = Rs. 4,92,980/- S.F. A.C.Sheet 105 s.f.ft. @ Rs.223/sq.ft. = Rs. 23,415/- S.F. Toilet (RCC) 18 sq.ft. @ Rs.320/sq.ft. = Rs. 5,760/- Thatched shed at second floor L.S. = Rs. 8,000/- Rs.10,15,265/- Basic Amenities 15% Rs. 1,52,290/- Rs.11,67,555/- Depreciation @ 1% per year for 21 years Depreciated value of building – 0.8097 x 11,67,555 Rs. 9,45,369/- Land value = 12,41,510 ----------- x 1838 = Rs. 9,50,789/- 2400 ------------------- Rs.18,96,158/- Schedule I Amenities 5% Rs. 94,808/- Total value Rs.19,90,967/- FAIR RENT: Fair Rent @ 9% per year being residential for per month Rs.14,932/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and thirty five only) II. FAIR RENT CALCULATION FOR HALF PORTION IN GROUND FLOOR (Tenancy portion) G.R. (612 + 62) = 674 sq.ft. @ Rs.349 sq.ft. = Rs.2,35,226/- Basic amenities 15% = Rs. 35,284/- Rs.2,70,510/- Depreciation at 1% per year for 21 years Depreciated value of building = 0.8097 x 2,70,510 = Rs.2,19,032/- LAND VALUE: Appropriated site area = 674 ---- = 337 sq.ft. 2F Land value = 12,41,510 ----------- x 337 = Rs.1,74,328/- 2400 ------------------ Rs.3,93,360/- Schedule I Amenities 5% Rs. 19,668/- Total value Rs.4,13,028/- FAIR RENT: Fair rent @ 9% per year being residential for per month = Rs.3,098/-" 21. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. R. Thiagarajan would place reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 668 [A.V. Gopalakrishnan vs. O.L.V.R. Paramanandam] wherein it is observed that opinion of engineer cannot be equated to the evidence of expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 22. In this case, the learned Judge has followed a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006 (2) CTC 433 [Sakthi & Co. v. Shree Desigachary] wherein this Court has held as follows - 6........................................ (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 there under 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. It cannot form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned there under 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. 23. It is true that neither of the parties have produced any guideline value nor the sale deeds with respect to the transfer of nearby lands. However, unlike in the above said case, namely A.V. Gopalakrishnan's case, in the case on hand, the respondent has also arranged an engineer to inspect the property who has inspected and prepared report and filed the same, marked as RW1. When the other side, comes forward with a valuation of the demised premise, it may be taken into consideration. The respondent is fully depending upon the particulars in the report including valuation of the property. As per CW1's report, Ex.C1, the total value of the property has been arrived at Rs.34,51,722/-. As per RW1, engineer, examined on behalf of the respondent, the total value of the demised premises is Rs.19,90,967/-. Both the presiding officers of the fora below have taken into consideration of the location of the premises as well as the salient features in the reports of the engineers as to the valuation and fixed the marked value of the premises at Rs.20 lakhs which reflects the value as arrived by RW1, engineer. Hence, it cannot be stated that by fixing the market value of the premises at Rs.20 lakhs, the respondent is prejudiced. In my view, the opinion recorded by the fora below need not be disturbed. 24. Hence, it cannot be stated that by fixing the market value of the premises at Rs.20 lakhs, the respondent is prejudiced. In my view, the opinion recorded by the fora below need not be disturbed. 24. In the grounds of the revision (h) in CRP.No.4095 of 2010, the tenant has stated that in the sale deed dated 23.9.1998 marked as Ex.R.1 in favour of the 1st respondent/landlord, the total built up area was 2000 sq.ft., whereas in the report filed by the Engineer C.W.1 it is stated that the built up area was 3600 sq.ft. and hence it is wrong to fix the fair rent for total construction of 3600 sq.ft. It is to be borne in mind that the sale deed shows the plinth area or the construction area. The fact remains that the premises consist of two floors viz., ground floor and first floor. For the purpose of fixing fair rent, the constructions in both the ground and first floor have been taken into consideration and for the total constructions built up plinth area in the ground floor and built up plinth area in first floor have been taken into consideration. They have been specifically mentioned in Ex.C.2 Report in calculation, in first and second lines. The cost of construction as shown therein are for the above floors with extent 1392.5 sq.ft. and 1573 sq.ft. respectively. Hence, this Court does not find any fault on the part of C.W.1 to value the cost of construction for each of the floor. 25. With reference to valuation and fixing the depreciation value as noted in Ex.C.2 report there is no denial on the part of the tenant in the grounds of revision. In the considered opinion of the Court also C.W.1 Engineer has properly taken note of all the aspects and fixed the value, except the market value of the premises. I do not find any factual infirmity in the orders passed by both the for a below which are aptly based upon reliable materials. 26. The time limit prescribed for filing statutory revision is 30 days as per Section 25(2) of the Act. The High Court can exercise its discretion in condoning the delay upto the maximum of 30 days. Afterward, no statutory revision could be filed. 26. The time limit prescribed for filing statutory revision is 30 days as per Section 25(2) of the Act. The High Court can exercise its discretion in condoning the delay upto the maximum of 30 days. Afterward, no statutory revision could be filed. In this context, it is seen that, having been sleepy for about three years, the respondent circumventing the statutory procedure by preferring revision has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution. In the considered view of this Court, it is not sustainable. Following are the relevant provisions in the Act as well as the authorities on this point. 27. As per Section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control Act) 1960, an order passed by the Rent Control Authorities shall be within 30 days and the High Court has got power to condone the delay of 30 days in extending. The provision reads as follows- "25. Revision.- (1) The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority, call for and examine the record of the Appellate Authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality of propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly. (2) Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under sub-section (I) shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates is communicated to the applicant: Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this subsection." 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also an occasion to discuss about Section 25(2) in a decision reported in 2003 (1) CTC 113 [India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani]. It is also observed therein that as the total time, excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy, does not exceed 60 days, the High Court had power to condone the delay in filing the revision petitions. 29. It is also observed therein that as the total time, excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy, does not exceed 60 days, the High Court had power to condone the delay in filing the revision petitions. 29. In 2010 (6) SCC 257 [Speedline Agencies v. T. Stanes and Company Limited], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus - 28. In a revision under Section 25 of the Act, the Court is exercising a restricted jurisdiction and not wide powers of the appellate court. In M/s Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Ors. vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar (1980) 4 SCC 259 at page 262 it was held:- 3......Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval1; it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal. 30. There is no valid ground either to modify or to set aside the order challenged before this Court, they have to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed. These revisions are devoid of merits. I answer these points as indicated above. 31. In fine C.R.P.No.4095 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs. C.R.P.No.2563 of 2012 is also dismissed. No costs.