( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 13, 1985 passed by the Additional Diltrict Judge.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd. is the owner of the property known as Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. It comprises of several residential flats, servant quarters and garages. Section 61 (l) (a) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 I (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ) empowers the respondent. New Delhi Municipal Committee, to impose a tax payable by the owner, on buildings and lands, not exceeding 12 1/2 per centum on the annual value. annual value as defined in Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act, in the case of any house or building means the gross annual rent at which such house or building, together with its appurtenances and any furniture that may be let for use or enjoyment therewith, may reasonably be expected to let from year to year, subject to a deduction of 10 per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross annual rent and certain other deductions. It is not in controversy that the Committee in exercise of the said powers has imposed house tax on this property.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 63 of the Act the Committee is required to cause an assessment list of all buildings and lands on which any tax is imposed to be prepared. The list, inter alia, is to contain the annual value of the property assessed and the amount of tax assessed thereon by the Committee.

( 4 ) FOR the year 1979-80 the Committee assessed the annual value of the appellant s property at Rs. 3,26,258. 10 and demanded a sum of Rs. 40,782. 20 as house tax. The appellant disputed the legality of the assessment and the demand and filed a suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Committee from recovering any amount in excess of Rs. 31,716. 00. The plea raised was that the appellant had recovered only a sum of Rs. 2,81,920. 00 towards rent in the year 1979-80 and after allowing 10% for repairs the annual value came to Rs. 2,53,728. 00 on which only a sum of Rs. 31,716. 00 was payable as house tax. Further plea was that the Committee had unlawfully added the amount realised by the appellant from its tenants towards house tax while determining the annual value and had completely ignored the provisions of the Act and the assessment was without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unlawful.

( 5 ) THE Committee resisted the suit. According to its plea the annual letting value had been legally assessed on the basis of gross annual rent being fetched for the property in question. It also raised the plea that the suit was barred under Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

( 6 ) THE trial proceeded on the following issues :-

"1. Whether the impugned demand of the defendant is illegal and unwarranted ? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred as per Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act ; 3. Relief. "

( 7 ) ON issue No. I the trial court held that the appellant had realised a sum of Rs. 2,81,920. 00 as total rent during the year in question. The rent of the amount received by the appellant was towards house tax which could not be included while assessing the annual value. The assessment made by the Committee on the basis of actual rent plus the house tax was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and the demand based on the said assessment was also illegal. On issue No. 2 learned Subordinate Judge held: "since the plaintiff has challenged the basis of assessment and also that assessment arrived at was contrary to the provisions of law, the jurisdiction of this court was not barred. " With these findings he decreed the suit.

( 8 ) IN appeal, learned Additional District Judge held that the grievance of the plaintiff-appellant was in regard to the mode of assessment of the tax and the principles of the assessment. Th