( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. C. S. Sastry counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff and Sri. Dommalapati Srinivas, the Counsel representing the respondent/defendant. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below had preferred the second appeal. The appellant-plaintiff, Kadiam Venkata ratnam filed a suit O. S. No. 282 of 1983 on the file of Principal District Munsif, kovvur for declaration that the enhancement of tax from Rs. 653-04 ps. to Rs. 1,312-37 ps. per half year for Assessment No. 894 for the schedule building is null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-the Nidadavole Municipality represented by its Commissioner Nidadavole from collecting the enhanced tax and for costs of the suit. The learned Principal district Munsif, Kowur by its judgment dated 12th day of August, 1987 had dismissed the suit with costs and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter by way of an appeal A. S. No. 52 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur and the appellate Court also had dismissed the appeal with costs and aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is preferred.

( 2 ) SRI C. C. S. Sastry, learned Counsel representing the appellant-plaintiff had pointed out that there is only one substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal which is as hereunder: whether the Courts below are justified in negativating the relief without properly appreciating the procedure to be followed while assessing the tax in the light of the provisions of Section 87 of a. P. Municipalities Act, 1965? The learned counsel had drawn the attention of this court to the findings recorded by the Court in the first instance and also the appellate court and had pointed out that just placing reliance on Ex. Bl and also recording a finding that there is no evidence placed on record by the appellant-plaintiff as to the actual rental value, the Courts below had confirmed the assessment. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to a decision K. Ramayya v. Guntur municipal Council, 1988 (2) ALT 131, in this regard.

( 3 ) PER contra Sri Dommalapati srinivas had pointed out that the Courts below had arrived at a correct finding by placing reliance on Ex. Bl in the absence of any other acceptable evidence placed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. The learned counsel also would point out that except the vague evidence of P. W-2, there is no other evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the self same decision in K. Ramayya v. Guntur Municipal Council and had pointed out that normally the rent actually received would furnish the criteria for determining the market value. The Counsel in all fairness had stated that it is no doubt not conclusive, but in the absence of contrary material when procedure had been followed, the Courts below are well justified in affirming thy assessment made by the respondent-defendant, Nidadavole Municipality.

( 4 ) HEARD both the Counsel. The only substantial question of law raised in the present second appeal had been already referred to supra. The respective pleadings of the parties are as hereunder:"it was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule house which is an old one and requires repairs. The entire house is being occupied by one Dr. Rajarao and after him by Rama nursing Home and they have been paying rs. 600/- per month as rent. The tenants are income tax assesses. The defendant issued a special notice, proposing enhancement of tax to Rs. 1,312-37 ps from Rs. 653-04 ps which was questioned by the plaintiff in a revision. But the defendant rejected the revision and. confirmed the tax at Rs. 1,306-08 ps per half year. The rental value arrived at by the defendant is arbitrary and illegal and against the procedure prescribed under the Act. Hence, suit for declaration that the enhancement is illegal. "

( 5 ) THE respondent as defendan