( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment passed in A. S. No. 30/84 dated 7-3-89 by the III Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, under which the decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, in O. S. No. 91/79 dated 26-3-84 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff was reversed.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts may be stated briefly as follows: The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD)-plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 91/79 for declaration that the order of the defendant municipality dated 30-8-78 enhancing the assessment of property tax from Rs. 278. 69 ps to Rs. 6,165. 91 ps for half year was illegal and not binding on the plaintiff, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the said assessment. It is averred that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and was paying hitherto a sum of Rs. 278. 69 ps per half year as property tax to the defendant municipality. While so, the defendant sent special notice to the plaintiff enhancing the property tax from Rs. 278. 69 ps to Rs. 7,161/- per half year with effect from 1-10-77. The said notice does not disclose the reasons for enhancing the property tax at abnormal rate, nor does it mention the basis for such enhancement. A revision was preferred before the defendant questioning the proposed enhancement, but the defendant, without considering the material before him, arbitrarily disposed of the revision petition by assessing the property tax at Rs. 6,444. 60 ps for half year. It is averred that the said enhancement is in clear violation of the procedure and rules under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short the Act ), and it was also opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the building is owner-occupied and the relevant rules have not been complied with by the defendant municipality in assessing the property tax.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the defendant municipality, a written statement was filed admitting the fact of tax originally levied and its subsequent enhancement. It is denied that the special notice does not disclose reasons for enhancement of the property tax. It is stated that the property tax was assessed at a very low level earlier and the defendant served a special notice to the plaintiff in that regard. It is further stated that the officers of the plaintiff gave evidence before the revising authority and categorically admitted that the building in question was leased out to the employees of the plaintiff on concessional rate of rent. It is also stated that the plaintiff insisted that the concessional rents from the basis of assessment, which is not tenable. It is stated that considering the nature of the building and its location, its rental value was correctly assessed and the property tax was levied on that basis. It is further stated that if the plaintiff was aggrieved by the order of assessment, it ought to have filed an appeal before the appellate commissioner. The plaintiff is not entitled to question the assessment of the property tax before the Court. It is stated that the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder have been substantially followed in respect of assessment of property tax on the plaintiff s property and the assessment of the property tax is in accordance with the rules.

( 5 ) ON these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the suit is barred by time?2. WHETHER the impugned order of defendant Dated 30-8-78 is not valid?3. WHETHER the enhancement of tax is illegal, arbitrary, or ultra vires the power of defendants?4. TO what relief?

( 6 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, a Clerk of TTD was examined as PW 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-3 have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, two employees of the Municipality were examined and Ex. B-1 has been marked.

( 7 ) ON this evidence, the learned Subo