Both of these methods lead to different values right.
How can two methods for the valuation of same asset, using same estimates be allowed to give out two different values?
one of them has to be considered wrong and i think layer method is not the right approach. It considers the contract rent to be in perpetuity(from present)(the rate used here is cap rate considering the extra certitude of payments based on the contract terms) and revision excess rent to be perpetuity after the date of revision( and then discounts this value to present)
But this is a wrong approach. discount rate has to be more after the revision as the default chances are more after the revision, as the payments to be made now are more as compared to the past