JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:—Some tax-payers of the appellant-Morvi Municipality (the Municipality) had filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the rules made by it for the levy of consolidated property tax on lands and buildings and also. the assessment lists prepared and authenticated by the Municipality for the year 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. There is no dispute that the concerned rules have been made by the Municipality under Section 271(l) read with S. 99(l) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (the Act). The relevant contentions of the writ petitioners who are the respondents before us, before the High Court were as follows:

1. Rule 2(7), 4 and 5 of the rules of the consolidated property tax on the lands and buildings were ultra vires Section 99(l)(i) and proviso (e) to it read with Section 2(1) of the Act-.

2. The assessment lists for the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were invalid since they were prepared without following the procedure laid down in Sections 105 to 112 of the Act.

The High Court upheld the validity of Rules 2(7) and 4. No appeal is preferred against that part of the High Courts decision. We are, therefore, concerned in this appeal only with the validity of Rule 5 which has been struck down by the High Court. The High Court has also declared that the tax collected by the Municipality for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 in excess of the amounts Which may be determined in accordance with the principles laid down by it in the judgment under appeal, was without the authority of law. So far as the assessment lists for the said two years are concerned, we are concerned in this appeal only with the validity of the excess amount. However, as far as the assessment list for the year 1967-68 is concerned, it has been struck down in its entirety by the High Court also on the ground that it was not prepared in compliance with the procedure laid down in Sections 105 to 112 of the Act. Hence we have to consider the validity of the entire assessment for the said, year.

Rules 4 and 5 have obviously been made by the Municipality to give effect to Section 99(l)(i) which provides for imposition of taxes on buildings or lands situate within its limits. The Section reads as follows:

"99. Taxes which may be imposed.-(1) Subject to any general or special orders which the State Government may make in this behalf and to the provisions of Sections 101 and 102, a municipality may impose for the purposes of this Act any of the following taxes, namely:-

(i) a tax on buildings or lands situate within the municipal borough to be based on the annual letting value or the capital value or a percentage of capital value of the buildings or lands or both;"

Further, Clause (e) of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 99 reads as follows:

"(e) the municipality in lieu of imposing separately any two or more of the taxes described in clause (i), (vii), (ix) and (x) except a special water-rate may impose a consolidated tax assessed as a tax on buildings or lands or both situated within the municipal borough."

Since the Municipality has chosen to impose the tax on the basis of the "annual letting value" of the buildings and lands and not on the basis of the capital value or percentage of capital value, we have to ascertain in the present case the precise connotation of the expression "annual letting value". Section 2(l) of the Act defines the expression "annual letting value" as follows:

"(1) annual letting value means the annual rent for which any building or land, exclusive of furniture or machinery contained or situate therein or thereon might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, and shall include all payments made or agreed to be made by a tenant to the owner of the building or land on account of occupation, taxes under any law for the time being in force, insurance or other charges incidental to his tenancy;"

The crucial expressions in the above definition are "might reasonably be expected t