ORDER 1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 11.10.2011 made in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub-Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the Order and Decretal order, dated 05.01.2011 made in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Nagapattinam. 2. It is seen that R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009 was filed by the respondent herein as landlord against the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (herein after referred to as “the Act”), seeking an order to fix fair rent for the rented premises. 3. After contest, considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, as per order, dated 05.01.2011, the learned Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs. 1,700/- per month and directed the revision petitioner to pay the amount, after deducting the amount already paid towards rent. it was also made clear that from the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition, till the date of the order, that is from 24.06.2008 to 30.12.2010 for about 31 months, at the rate of Rs. 1,700/- per month, total amount was calculated at Rs. 52,700/-, out of which, the petitioner had already paid rent at Rs. 90/- per month, accordingly, the balance of Rs. 49,910/- was directed to be paid by the petitioner herein within two months along with the costs. Aggrieved by the order and decretal order, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 4. By Judgment and Decree, dated 11.10.2011 made in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2011, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirmed the order and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2009, dated 05.01.2011 and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal with costs. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant under Section 25 of the Act. 5. It is an admitted fact that the premises relating to the Rent Control Original Petition is within the area of Nagapattinam municipality in W. No. 2, Block No. 13, T.S. No. 737, an extent of 208 sq.ft of constructed building, bearing Door No. 6 and the same was let out for non-residential purpose, wherein the revision petitioner was running his business. 6. 6. The revision petitioner, as P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the suit building is in a prominent place within the municipal limit of Nagapattinam. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the earlier rent was only Rs. 90/- per month, however, it was enhanced to Rs. 1,700/- per month. 7. There is a concurrent finding by the Courts below in respect of fixing the fair rent for the Rent control premises, hence, the scope of the revision under Section 25 of the Act is limited. If the impugned Judgment, confirming the order and decretal order of the Rent Controller was passed without jurisdiction or if the concurrent finding is perverse, this Court can interfere with the same. Being the revision petitioner, the burden is upon the revision petitioner to legally convince the Court that the fair rent fixed by the Courts below is exorbitant and not sustainable. Merely because the earlier monthly rent was Rs. 90/- , the petitioner cannot raise a defeence stating that the rent has been raised for about 25 times. 8. In the evidence, the revision petitioner as R.W.1 has stated that the respondent has not made any repair works only the petitioner had done the repair works, however, to show that the repair works were done by the petitioner with the consent of the respondent, admittedly, no supporting document was marked. 9. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the fair rent was fixed, based on the market value of the land and the value of the superstructure. As per the findings of the Court below, annual rental value and the fair rent were fixed as per the evidence available on record. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in H.C. Lodha v. Dr. C. Ranganathan and Others, AIR 1989 Mad 225 : LNIND 1989 MAD 105 : (1989) 1 MLJ 213 wherein it has been held as follows: “2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in H.C. Lodha v. Dr. C. Ranganathan and Others, AIR 1989 Mad 225 : LNIND 1989 MAD 105 : (1989) 1 MLJ 213 wherein it has been held as follows: “2. The controversy in these matters relates to the arriving at the market value of the sit in which the building is constructed, as per the first proviso to sub-sec (4) of S.4 of the Act, which proviso reads as follows: “Provided that while calculating the market value of the site in which the building is constructed, the Controller shall take into account only that portion of the site on which the building it constructed and of a portion up to fifty per cent thereof of the vacant land, if any, appurtenant to such building the excess portion of the vacant land being treated as amenity.” 10. It has been made clear that the Rent Controller shall take into account only the portion of the site on which building is constructed and up to fifty percent of the rent thereof for the vacant land be fixed and, if any, appurtenant to such building the excess portion of the vacant land be treated as amenity. 11. On a perusal of the order and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Controller and also the impugned Judgment and Decree rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Court is of the view that the concurrent decision taken by the Courts below is based on evidence, which cannot be construed as perverse, as the finding is not against evidence or without evidence. The petitioner herein has not specifically stated as to which way, the fair rent fixed by the Courts below is against the evidence or without evidence, on the higher side. 12. On the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error or legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment and decree, so as to warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 12. On the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error or legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment and decree, so as to warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The petitioner/tenant is directed to pay arrears of rent as per the fair rent fixed by the Courts below, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Petition dismissed.