S LOURDURAJ Vs. HENRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION Petition filed against the order dated 31.10.2002, passed in R.C.A.No.1/2002 on the file of the appellate authority (Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai) modifying the order dated 8.1.2002 made in R.C.O.P.No.7/2000, on the file of the rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Mayiladuthurai. This REVISION Petition has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2002, passed in R.C.A.No.1/2002 on the file of the appellate authority (Principal Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai) modifying the order dated 8.1.2002 made in R.C.O.P.No.7/2000, on the file of the rent controller (Principal District Munsif) Mayiladuthurai.

(2.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority in RCA No.1/2002 by which fair rent was fixed for the petition premises at Rs.1,250/-.

(3.) AFTER going through the orders of the authorities below and the records, I am of the considered view that the appellate authority has correctly applied his mind in fixing the fair rent at R.1,250/- per month. Obviously the rent controller has erred in law in fixing the value of the land on the basis of the guideline value. The Full Bench of this court has held in 2006(2)CTC 433(Sakthi & Co. vs. Sri Desigachari) that guideline value cannot form a foundation to determine the market value of the property. The appellate authority has kept this principle in mind and arrived at the value of the land on the basis of Ex.B1 and accordingly valued the building and fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,250/- per month.