Judgment : 1. The petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition questioning the correctness of the Order dated 05.04.2007 passed in R.C.A. No. 97 of 2004 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 216 of 1999 on 23.09.2003. 2. The respondents herein have filed R.C.O.P. No. 216 of 1999 before the learned Rent Controller under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter shall be referred to as 'The Act' for fixation of fair rent for the premises leased out to the Corporation. According to the respondents, they are the owners of the Petition mentioned premises which was leased out to the revision petitioner-Corporation by executing a lease deed dated 22.05.1964 for a period of 20 years. Subsequently, the lease was extended for a further period years and it came to an end on 19.06.1999. When the respondents called upon the revision petitioner to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question, it was not acceded to. It was further contended by the respondents that the corporation was paying Rs.1,300/- as monthly rent for the first 10 years with effect from 20.05.1979 which was enhanced to Rs.2,100/-for the next ten years. The revision petitioner-corporation is utilising the demised premises for running a retail petroleum outlet through its dealers and that the rent which paid by the Corporation was very low. Under those circumstances, the petitioners have filed the petition for fixation of fair rent. In the Petition for fixation of fair rent, the respondents have claimed a monthly rent of Rs.60,576/-per month, as a fair and reasonable rent for the petition mentioned premises. 3. The revision petitioner corporation filed a counter statement contending that the corporation is a public limited company and therefore, the provisions of the Act will not be applicable and if at all only the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act alone can be made applicable against the corporation. The leased premises has substantial vacant land and only a very small extent consists of superstructure and therefore, the rent, as claimed by the respondents, is onerous and unreasonable. 4. Pending R.C.O.P. No. 216 of 1999, at the instance of the respondents herein, I.A. No. 28 of 2002 was filed for appointment of an advocate commissioner. The leased premises has substantial vacant land and only a very small extent consists of superstructure and therefore, the rent, as claimed by the respondents, is onerous and unreasonable. 4. Pending R.C.O.P. No. 216 of 1999, at the instance of the respondents herein, I.A. No. 28 of 2002 was filed for appointment of an advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner also visited the premises in question along with an Engineer and submitted his report. The Engineer has submitted a report, suggesting that Rs.85,000/-can be fixed as rent per month for the premises in question. 5. Before the learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the respondents herein, the first respondent herein namely Thirugnanam examined himself as PW1 and Mr. Syed Makbool, Engineer was examined as PW2. Exs. P1 to P9 have been marked on behalf of the respondents herein. On behalf of the Corporation, one Murugesan was examined as RW1 and Exs. R1 to R3 have been marked. Exs. C1 to C5 have also been marked as Court documents. 6. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, taking in to consideration that the land leased out to the Corporation is measuring 14127 square feet in which there exists a super structure, held that the rent which was paid by the corporation is meager. The learned Rent Controller has also taken into account that the petition mentioned premises was leased out to the Corporation during 1964 and after three decades, there were enormous increase in the land value due to urbanisation. The learned Rent Controller also took into consideration the report of the Advocate commissioner as also the Engineer, who was examined as PW2, and fixed the fair rent at Rs.69,100/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the Corporation has filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appellate authority passed a detailed order and upheld the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 8. The only argument raised by the learned counsel revision petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has not given any independent finding while upholding the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appellate authority, while upholding the order passed by the learned Rent Controller with respect to fixation of the fair rent ought to have given independent findings. 8. The only argument raised by the learned counsel revision petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has not given any independent finding while upholding the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appellate authority, while upholding the order passed by the learned Rent Controller with respect to fixation of the fair rent ought to have given independent findings. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking order and it is bereft of any material particulars. In the absence of any independent finding, it will be difficult for the revision petitioner to assail such order before the appellate Forum. When an order is passed without giving sufficient reasons for arriving at a conclusion, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Except this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any other points in this Civil Revision Petition. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that both the courts below have concurrently held that the fair rent payable by the Corporation for remaining in possession in the demised premises at Rs.69,100/-. While fixing such fair rent, the learned Rent Controller has examined the locational advantages, existing guide line value and other attendant privileges which the corporation enjoys by remaining in possession of the petition mentioned premises. On appeal, the first appellate Court also dealt with all the arguments raised before it and confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appellate authority passed a detailed order and therefore it cannot be said that such an order is a non-speaking order. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below does not call for any interference by this Court and he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 10. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The short point arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the Appellate Authority did not render an independent finding while confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, if so, whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority is vitiated. 11. It is admitted that the Corporation was inducted into the petition mentioned premises during the year 1964. 11. It is admitted that the Corporation was inducted into the petition mentioned premises during the year 1964. In the year 1999, after a period of 35 years, the respondents/landlords have come forward with a Petition under Section 4 of the Act contending that the rent which is being paid by the Corporation is very meager and therefore it has become necessary to file the petition seeking fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.69,100/-which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The revision petitioner is not questioning the legality of the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller, but only contends that the Appellate Authority has not given any independent findings while upholding the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking order, bereft of any material particulars which prevented the revision petitioner to effectively assail such an order before this Court. 12. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would indicate that the appellate Authority dealt with the various grounds raised before it by the Corporation. In para-10, the Appellate Authority, while dealing with the correctness or otherwise of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller, dealt with the evidence let in by the parties, particularly the Cross-examination. Similarly, in para-11 of the order, the appellate authority, while dealing with the contention raised by the Corporation that the superstructure in the petition mentioned premises has been put up by them, analysed the evidence and ultimately held that ……….. Thus, it is evident that the Appellate Authority had dealt with the plea raised by the Corporation that the superstructure was put up by them and ultimately, after analysing the evidence of both sides, rejected such contention urged on behalf of the Corporation. 13. It is also seen from the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the Appellate Authority relied on Ex.P5, a sale deed dated 22.06.1999 filed on behalf of the respondents to prove the market value of the property. The marking of this document was objected to by the corporation by contending that to prove Ex.P5, no independent witness was examined before the Rent Controller and therefore Ex.P5 will be of no significance. The marking of this document was objected to by the corporation by contending that to prove Ex.P5, no independent witness was examined before the Rent Controller and therefore Ex.P5 will be of no significance. While considering the validity of Ex.P5, a certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.06.1999, the Appellate Authority gave a specific finding that Ex.P5 can be relied on to ascertain the market value of the property in question and that the examination of an independent witness to speak about its content is not necessary. In para-11 of the order, the Appellate Authority also placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh) 2001 (3) CTC 368 to hold that certified copy of a document is admissible in evidence without examining parties to such document and it is in compliance with Section 74 (2), 76 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. After relying on the decision of the Honurable Supreme Court, mentioned above, the Appellate Authority specifically concluded. 14. In this case, the Appellate Authority has given a specific finding and agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Controller in fixing the fair rent for the premises in question. The Appellate Authority also given reasons for affirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. In fact, after dealing with the contentions urged on behalf of both sides, the Appellate Authority held in para-11. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in (C. Shanmugam vs. N.S.K. Chokkalingam Pillai) 1991 (2) MLJ 481 to contend that the Appellate Authority has not given any reason for arriving at its conclusion but merely stated that the finding of the Rent Controller does not call for interference in the appeal. In that case, on finding that the order of the Appellate Authority was cryptic and that the Appellate Authority has not adverted to the evidence available on record, this Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition. This decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, the Appellate Authority elaborately dealt with each and every one of the grounds canvassed by the Corporation and rendered a specific finding and therefore it cannot be said that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a cryptic order. 16. This decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, the Appellate Authority elaborately dealt with each and every one of the grounds canvassed by the Corporation and rendered a specific finding and therefore it cannot be said that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is a cryptic order. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that no doubt the Appellate Authority has discussed in detail about the order passed by the Rent Controller, but it ought to have given a separate work sheet to show that the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller is in consonance with the market value of the property. There is no such finding rendered by the Appellate Authority which vitiates the order. Such a contention made on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced. What is required by the Appellate Court is to give a finding, though not in detail, to arrive at a conclusion that the order passed by the Rent Controller is plausible, reasonable and sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellate Authority need not deal with each and every aspects in detail. The order of the appellate authority need be brief and it should not be a non-speaking order. It should disclose reasons for affirmation. The appellate authority need not draw a table and make arithmetical assessment for fixation of the fair rent. When the Appellate Authority finds that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Controller is plausible and reasonable, it need not draw any table or make an arithmetical calculation to confirm the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney) (2009) 4 SCC 240 wherein it was held that the order of Appellate Authority need not be brief but it shall contain reasons for arriving at a conclusion. The order of the Appellate Authority need not deal with each and every line of the order passed by the lower court but it should subjectively satisfy that the order passed by the lower court is in accordance with law. The order of the Appellate Authority need not deal with each and every line of the order passed by the lower court but it should subjectively satisfy that the order passed by the lower court is in accordance with law. As mentioned above, in this case, the Appellate Authority has elaborately dealt with each and every grounds raised by the Corporation and it does not calls for any interference by this Court. 17. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that the petition mentioned premises is situate in Peelamedu, Coimbatore Town, one of the bustling commercial area in Coimbatore District and the total extent of the land leased out to the Corporation is 14127 square feet together with a superstructure where the Corporation is running a petrol bunk through its dealer. In fact, the Engineer, PW2, in his report filed before the learned Rent Controller opined that a sum of Rs.85,000/-can be fixed as rent per month for the premises in question. Such report was filed even as early as 2002 for which an objection was made by the Corporation on 28.06.2002, which was marked as Ex.C5. However, the learned Rent Controller fixed a sum of Rs.69,100/-per month as fair rent, which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority by taking into account the oral and documentary evidences made available. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, are valid and in accordance with law and interference of this Court is not warranted. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Courts below. No costs.