M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal raises a question of validity of assessment of municipal tax for the years commencing from 1st October. 1978. A notice was issued for enhancement of tax on 12-2-1979 as per Ex. A. 1. The building was partly owner-occupied and partly let out to tenants. In the portion occupied by tenants, there are five tenants. In the portion occupied by the landlord there are six rooms. The suit was filed for a declaration that the above said special notice dated 12-2-1979 and the endorsement dated 29-3-1979 of the Municipality were illegal and for consequential injunction restraining the Municipality from collecting the enhanced tax with regard to assessment No. 7757 in Kakinada municipality. The suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif by judgment dated 25-6-1982. On appeal by tne plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs throughout. The learned Subordinate Judge held that even though no fair rent was fixed under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in respect of the tenanted portions, the Municipal authorities could not treat the actual rent as the fair rent and they (Jagannadha Rao, J.) were bound to apply the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act and consider whether the agreed rent was fair rent or not or whether it was anything low. Inasmuch as the said aspect was not borne in mind by the assessing authorities, the impugned notice was set aside. Against the said judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, this second appeal has been preferred by the Municipality.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Rajagopala Rao, that the view expressed by the lower appellate Court is contrary to a recent judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in K. Suryaprakasa Rao (died) vs. Commissioner and Special Officer, Kakinada Municipality where it has been held that in the absence of fixation of fair rent under the provisions of A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 rent paid by the tenant should be treated to be fair rent for the purpose of determination of annual rental value.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy for Sri C. Poornaiah that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is consistent with judgments of the supreme Court and also earlier judgments of this court and that therefore the judgment in K. Suryaprakasa Rao (died) (1 supra) is not correct. It is argued that the provisions of the rent control law have to. be taken into consideration by the tax assessing authorities not merely in cases where fair rent is already fixed by the Rent Controller but also where fair rent has not yet been fixed by that officer.

( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the point raised, it is necessary to notice the various changes in the statutes, in recent times. as to the assessment of house properties in Municipalities in A. P. and to refer to the developments in the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. It is, in that context, necessary to examine the language of the statutes in the other States and compare the language of the statute in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.

( 5 ) THE Madras Act of 1920: under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 it was provided in Section 82 (2) as follows:"section 82 (2): The annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year, less a deduction, in the case of buildings, ten per cent". . . . . . . . . . The expression "may reasonably be expected" was construed by the Supreme Court in corporation of Calcutta vs. Smt. Padma Devi as follows: "though the word reasonably in Section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, is not capable of precise definition, it signifies in accordance with reasons . In the ultimate analysis, it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document