JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.883 of 2018 by VIII Judge (FAC), Court of Small Causes at Chennai,[Rent Control Appellate Authority] confirming the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.95 of 2016 by XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, [Rent Controller] dated 02.11.2017.) 1.This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, dated 09.11.2021 made in RCA.No.883 of 2018. 2. The revision petitioner is the tenant, against whom, the respondent/landlady filed a petition in RCOP.No.95 of 2016 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. In the said petition, an order was passed on 02.11.2017 by fixing the monthly fair rent at Rs.9,753/-. Aggrieved over that, the tenant has preferred the Appeal in RCA.No.883 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the said Appeal was dismissed on 09.11.2021 by confirming the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by that, this Revision has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent/caveator and also perused the materials available on record. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the land value for the demised premises has not been fixed correctly; the sample sale deed relied upon by the Rent Controller was not relevant to the demised property; the sample deed relied on by the revision petitioner and produced before the Court below was marked as Ex.R4; the learned Rent Controller placed reliance on Ex.P3 (sale deed), which was not executed at the relevant point of time when the petition was filed; the land value was fixed by taking the rate per ground at Rs.2 Crores, which was too high; the land value in the vicinity would not be more than Rs.25 lakhs per ground and that was not properly considered by the Rent Controller; the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also, without testing the correctness of the fixation of the value for the land, had confirmed the rent fixed by the Rent Controller. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent caveator submitted that the learned Rent Controller has relied on Ex.P3(sale deed) and the land value was fixed on the basis of Ex.P3 sample sale deed, because the subject matter of Ex.P3 (sale deed) is situated in the same street, where the demised property is situated; the sale deed relied on by the petitioner-tenant was of the year 2011 and the value given by the petitioner's engineer also was very meagre and it did not truly reflect the market value; hence, the learned Rent Controller had chosen to reject Ex.R4 and relied on Ex.P3 for fixing the market value of the land. 6. The matter lies in a very narrow compass. The revision petition was preferred questioning the basis, on which, the land value was arrived by the Rent Controller. There is no difficulty in fixing the land value because of the guidelines already set in this regard. The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, in the decision in the case of Sakthi & Co. Vs. Shree Desigachary [reported in 2006 (2) CTC 433 ], considered different views expressed by the learned Judges in different cases and at last, arrived at the following conclusion and the same is extracted as hereunder: “18. Therefore, our conclusions are as follows : (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 thereunder 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.” 7. So, the fixation of the fair rent based on the guideline value is not approved. So, the fixation of the fair rent based on the guideline value is not approved. The Court below did not opt to fix the market value on the basis of the guideline value, which is just a formal value in books for the purpose of fixing the stamp duty during the transactions. The right method is to adopt that the evidence of bonafide sales between the willing prudent vendor and the prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about the land. The reason being that no seller would sell a property below its actual value except for any extraneous reasons. The buyer will also do the maximum bargain while purchasing the property unless it is for any fashionable reasons. So, the reliance can be placed on the actual sale value, for which, the properties are being transacted in the area between the prudent vendee and the prudent vendor. 8. In the case on hand, the respondent/ landlady has produced Ex.P3 as the sample sale deed and the petitioner has placed reliance on Ex.R4 to show the sample value. While the property transacted in Ex.P3 showed the land value at Rs.2,12,66,000/-per ground, the property transacted in Ex.R4 would show the ground value at Rs.62,00,000/-. Ex.R4 sale deed is much prior the time than the time of the original petition. It relates to the year 2011. Ex.P3 was of the year 2014 and that is nearer to the date of the original petition. While fixing the market value apart from the values reflected in the sample sale deeds, the location advantages and all other circumstances should also be taken into consideration. 9. The engineers, who have worked out their respective assessment of the land value had taken into consideration of the various aspects. The landlady’s engineer had given 15% appreciation to determine the market value whereas the tenant’s engineer had given only 5% appreciation. There is a gross difference between the rate of the land shown in Ex.P3 and Ex.R4. The learned Rent Controller had considered the other advantages of the locality and also the non residential nature of the demised property and fixed the fair rent by calculating the land value at the rate of Rs.2 Crores per ground. Accordingly, the land value arrived for the demised property measuring 83.86 sq.ft is Rs.6,99,083/- . The learned Rent Controller had considered the other advantages of the locality and also the non residential nature of the demised property and fixed the fair rent by calculating the land value at the rate of Rs.2 Crores per ground. Accordingly, the land value arrived for the demised property measuring 83.86 sq.ft is Rs.6,99,083/- . Even though the market value can be adopted by taking into consideration of the nearest sample sale deed, the evidence of both sides engineers should also be taken into consideration. If the size of the premises is big, then the market value would be more because of the multiple user value, if the size of the demised premise is small the property can be used only for specific purposes. The said factor will also play a role while determining the market value. 10. As stated already, in the case in hand, the area of the land is very small i.e. 83.89 sq.ft only. Even though it is right for the learned Rent Controller to rely on Ex.P3 sample sale deed, the bona-fide of which is not disputed., the Courts below should have also considered the limited size of the land and limited user while fixing the land value. So, taking into consideration of the above said factor, I feel the market value for the land can be reasonably fixed at Rs.1,80,00,000/- per ground. It is seen from the order of the Rent Controller that no value has been added for the amenities provided in the premises though the premises has got electricity and water connections. Since the revision petitioner has taken up the premises for commercial purpose, the electricity and water facilities are inevitable. Hence, I feel that under the head 'amenities' a sum of Rs.30,000/- can be added. 11. Though the Rent Controller had kept the land value at the rate of Rs.2 Crores per ground, there appears to be some arithmetic error in arriving at the aggregate amount by adding the cost of construction and the land value. Had the Rent Controller noticed the error in addition, the fair rent would have been less than what was fixed by the Rent Controller. However, now the fair rent is arrived by adding up the factor 'amenities' also. Had the Rent Controller noticed the error in addition, the fair rent would have been less than what was fixed by the Rent Controller. However, now the fair rent is arrived by adding up the factor 'amenities' also. So, the calculation for the fair rent would be fixed as under: Fair Rent Calculation: cost of construction already arrived by the Rent Controller Rs.76,211/- Land value now fixed: (Rs.1,80,00,000/- / 2400 ) x 83.89 sq.ft Rs.6,29,175/- Cost of Amenities Rs.30,000/- cost of construction + land value+cost of Amenities Rs.7,35,386/- fair rent @12% per year (Rs.7,35,386/- x 12%) being non-residential purpose Rs.88,246/- fair rent per month(Rs.88,246/-/12) Rs.7,353/- rounded off Rs.7,350/- In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside. The order passed by the Rent Controller is modified to the extent that the fair rent for the premises is fixed at Rs.7,350/- [Rupees Seven thousand three hundred and fifty only] per month from the date of Original Petition i.e. 22.01.2016. No costs.