ORDER : The tenant who is the revision petitioner has challenged the common order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes in R.C.A.Nos.563 & 885 of 2004 against the order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller of XVI Small Causes, Madras in R.C.O.P.No.1724 of 1998 which was the petition filed by the respondents herein for fixation of the fair rent in respect of the commercial portion measuring 6,000 Sq.ft consisting of the ground floor and first floor of the premises bearing Municipal Door Nos.135 & 136 at Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.1. The Rent Control Petition was originally filed by the first respondent herein on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court (Rent Controller, Chennai). It was the case of the first respondent that the revision petitioner was a tenant under them and that he was a co-owner of the premises bearing Nos.135 & 136, Mount Road, Chennai along with his siblings and mother. He contended that he had the approval of the other co-owners to file the petition and if there was an objection by the respondent, other co-owners were ready to give their written consents. The first respondent had submitted that the revision petitioner was paying only monthly rental of Rs.8,300/- exclusive of the electricity and water consumption charges in respect of the premises which was situated in a prime commercial locality. The first respondent had claimed a fair rent of Rs.2,94,180/- per month. 2.2. The revision petitioner herein resisted the above petition on the ground that the first respondent was not a co-owner in exclusive charge and control and management of the suit property. He would further contend that they had entered into an agreement only with the first respondent's brother R.J. Amarnath (second respondent herein) and that rent was payable only to the second respondent herein. They would further contend that second respondent had originally filed R.C.O.P.No.2924/83 for fixing fair rent and R.C.O.P.No.2271/83 for eviction on the grounds of acts of waste and R.C.O.P.No.2658/83 on the ground of willful default. It was his case that these petitions were withdrawn by the second respondent and a Lease Agreement was entered into on 10.10.1994 wherein it was agreed that the monthly rental which was Rs.3,250/- would be enhanced to a sum of Rs.4,000/- with effect from 01.09.1983. It was his case that these petitions were withdrawn by the second respondent and a Lease Agreement was entered into on 10.10.1994 wherein it was agreed that the monthly rental which was Rs.3,250/- would be enhanced to a sum of Rs.4,000/- with effect from 01.09.1983. It is this rent that has been gradually enhanced to the sum of Rs.8,300/- per month which was payable as on the date of the filing of the Rent Control Petition. The respondent had further contended that the prime portion of the petition premises was constructed by them and they would further contend that the land value quoted was far in excess of the actual value and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In view of the objections raised by the revision petitioner, the second respondent herein was impleaded as the second petitioner in the Rent Control proceedings by order dated 11.11.2003 in M.P.No.1093 of 2003. 3. The respondents had examined the Engineer who had inspected the petition premises as P.W.1 and had marked his Report, Plan and Comparative Sale Deed as Exs.P.1 to 3 and Analysis Report as Ex.P.4. On the respondent's side one R. Radhakrishnamurthy was examined as R.W.1 and he had filed a sale deed of the year 1963 as Ex.R1 and a letter as Ex.R2. The Rent Controller on a total analysis of the evidence both oral and documentary, fixed the land value at a sum of Rs.1 Crore. The Rent Controller chose to not take into consideration Ex.P.3 as he felt that the yearly enhancement of 10% was far too excessive. Therefore, the Rent Controller arrived at a land value of Rs.1 Crore. The Rent Controller further came to a conclusion that only 1,454 Sq.ft had to be taken into consideration since there was a first floor. Ultimately, the Rent Controller arrived at a monthly fair rent of Rs.76,124/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, both the revision petitioner as well as the respondents had filed R.C.A.Nos.563 & 885 of 2004 respectively. The Appellate Authority fixed the land value at Rs.2,89,29,290.47/-, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the Engineer's Analysis Report, Ex.P.4 and Sale Deed, Ex.P.3. Ultimately, monthly fair rent was fixed at Rs.2,92,007/-. The Appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the rent was fixed at Rs.2,92,007/- per month. 5. Ultimately, monthly fair rent was fixed at Rs.2,92,007/-. The Appeal filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the rent was fixed at Rs.2,92,007/- per month. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner has filed these two revision petitions. The respondents have produced an additional typed set of papers containing documents of which the first and second documents have been taken note of by this Court since there was no objection by the respondents. However, the respondents have objected to this Court looking into the additional affidavit since none of the documents were marked and no petition to receive additional documents had been filed by the respondents. Therefore, this Court has not considered the said documents. 6. Since both the revision petitions arise out of a common order, they are heard together and a common order is being passed. Mr. E.M. Sudharsana Nachiappan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Lavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the locus standi of the first respondent to initiate the rent control proceedings. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that in a suit pending amongst the first respondent's family in C.S.No.212 of 1987, the Court had ordered that the second respondent would be the owner of the petition premises and therefore, the rent control proceedings initiated by the first respondent is not maintainable as there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the first respondent and the revision petitioner. He would further argue that on 01.02.2005, they had kept the petition premises vacant and on 14.05.2005, they have handed over vacant possession to the second respondent who received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claims in respect of the premises. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that by receiving this sum, the issue about fair rent has been finally set to rest. The learned Senior Counsel would further argue that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was therefore wrong in fixing and enhancing the fair rent. 7. Mr. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that by receiving this sum, the issue about fair rent has been finally set to rest. The learned Senior Counsel would further argue that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was therefore wrong in fixing and enhancing the fair rent. 7. Mr. K.P. Ashok, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would contend that the petition had been filed by the first respondent only in his capacity as a co-owner and this Court in its order in Application No.2153 of 1992 had only recognised the right of the second petitioner to receive the rent and had not declared him as the exclusive owner of the petition premises. He would also argue that consequent to the amendment on 11.11.2003, the second respondent has also stepped in as the petitioner in the proceedings and therefore, the contention made by the revision petitioner fails. He would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 of the Rent Control Petition wherein the first respondent has categorically stated that he was filing the petition only in his capacity as a co-owner and that in case the respondent objects to the same, he would obtain the written consent of the other co-owners and on the basis of this undertaking, the second respondent was also impleaded as a co-petitioner. He would further argue that the Rent Controller had erroneously fixed the land value at Rs.1 Crore per ground, totally over looking the evidence of P.W.1 and also Exs.P.3 & 4, more particularly, Ex.P.3 which was a sale deed of the year 1997 and which is just a year prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition. He would further argue that the Appellate Authority had rightly taken into account Exs.P.3 & 4 to arrive at the land cost of Rs.2,31,89,812/- per ground. He would also argue that the Appellate Authority had denied the 10% enhancement per year. He would further argue that though the Rent Control Appellate Authority had not taken into account the first floor for arriving at the value since he has not challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, he was not canvassing the same. Therefore, he argued that the order of the Appellate Authority may be confirmed. 8. He would further argue that though the Rent Control Appellate Authority had not taken into account the first floor for arriving at the value since he has not challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, he was not canvassing the same. Therefore, he argued that the order of the Appellate Authority may be confirmed. 8. After hearing both parties and perusing the records, this Court is passing the following order : The main defence of the revision petitioner is that the first respondent did not have the locus standi to initiate the rent control proceedings as it was only the second respondent who had entered into the agreement with the revision petitioner and who had been recognised as the owner by this Court in Application No.2153 of 1992 in C.S.No.212 of 1987. Though these documents have not been marked in the rent control proceedings, there was no objection on the side of the respondents in considering the contents of this document. The learned counsel for the respondent has himself relied all portions of these documents. A reading of the affidavit in Application No.2153 of 1992 and the order therein shows that the properties were all treated as the joint properties of the plaintiffs and defendants therein (the first plaintiff therein is the second respondent herein), only the collection of rents was divided amongst the siblings under this arrangement. The second respondent herein was allotted the collection of rent in respect of the petition premises and the other property. Clause 6 of this affidavit reads as follows : “6. The amount deposited into Court to the credit of the above suit can be withdrawn by me (the 1st Plaintiff) and diverted to the joint a/c. Any variation in terms of the Tenancy Agreement or change of tenancy, increase of rent, advance, etc. relating to all the suit properties shall be with the written consent of all the three till the suit is finally disposed off by a final partition.” 9. In paragraph No.9 of this affidavit it was made clear that this arrangement was only an interim arrangement. On the basis of this Application, orders were pronounced by this Court on 30.09.1993. relating to all the suit properties shall be with the written consent of all the three till the suit is finally disposed off by a final partition.” 9. In paragraph No.9 of this affidavit it was made clear that this arrangement was only an interim arrangement. On the basis of this Application, orders were pronounced by this Court on 30.09.1993. That apart, the Rent Control Petition has been filed by the first respondent only in his capacity as a co-owner and this fact has been elaborated in paragraph No.3 of the rent control petition which reads as follows : “3. The petitioner is the Co-owner in exclusive charge, control and management of the premises bearing Municipal Door Nos.135 and 136, Mount road, renamed as Anna Salai, Madras - 600 002 and his co-owners are his family members i.e., Brothers, Sisters and Mother, who are consenting parties without any objection. If for any strange reason the respondent objects, their written consents will be filed into Court.” 10. After the objection made by the revision petitioner, the application to implead the second respondent as the second petitioner appears to have been taken and he has thereafter been impleaded as the second petitioner in the rent control proceedings. Therefore, it has to be construed the rent control proceedings has been initiated by the second respondent as well. In these circumstances, the argument of the revision petitioner that the rent control petition is not maintainable as it has been filed by the person who is not the landlord fails. 11. The next argument which has been forcefully canvassed by the learned counsel is the settlement between the parties, the same cannot be countenanced for the following reasons : (a) This document has not been marked in the proceedings and the same has been objected too by the counsel for the respondents. (b) Though this document, which is a letter, dated 14.05.2005 the revision petitioner has not taken steps to produce this letter in the appeal proceedings and there is no reference to the said letter. Therefore, this Court cannot look into the said document. 12. With reference to the fixation of fair rent, there was no serious arguments advanced on the side of the revision petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot look into the said document. 12. With reference to the fixation of fair rent, there was no serious arguments advanced on the side of the revision petitioner. However, on a perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, it is seen that the Appellate Authority has considered the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P.3 & 4 to arrive at the fair rent of Rs.2,92,007/- per month. The Appellate Authority has discussed the evidence in detail in the said order and I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority. This Court while sitting in Revision under Section 25 cannot re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence and can only interfere with the order passed by the Authority below, if the same is perverse. In the instant case, the order of the Authority below is well reasoned and the Appellate Authority has discussed in detail the procedure that he had adopted for arriving at the market value. 13. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The order of the learned VIII Small Causes Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai) in R.C.A.No.563 & 885 of 2004 dated 14.12.2006 against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller of XVI Small Causes Madras in R.C.O.P.No.1724 of 1998 dated 09.03.2004 is confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.