JUDGMENT.-The appellant is the owner of Door Nos. 58, 16 and l6-A-1, situate in Vijayapuram within the Municipal limits o f Tiruvarur. The appellant is. living in Door No. 58 and he has rented out Door Nos. 16 and 16-A-1. Till 1st April, 1965, the assessment for Door No. 58 was Rs. 144 and the property tax payable is Rs. 14-89 while the assessment for Door No. 16 was Rs. 840 and the property tax payable for it was Rs. 87-04 and the assessment for Door No. 16-A/1 was Rs. 192, and the property tax payable for it is Rs. 19-89.. In the month of March 1969 however, the respondent Municipality, issued special notices proposing to increase the assessments, in respect of these three buildings to Rs. 360, Rs. 1,200 and Rs. 840 respectively and to increase the property tax to Rs. 37-30, Rs. 124-34 and Rs. 87-04, respectively. The appellant filed revision petitionobejcting to the propsed enhancements but these revisions petitions were dismissed where upon the appellant filed appeals to the Municipal Council but they were also dismissed.. In these circumstances, the appellant filed a suit O.S. No. 81 of 1966 before the learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur, for a declaration that the increase in the assessment was illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality from taking coercive steps against the appellant contending that the notice served under rule 6 did not confirm to the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act) either in substance or in effect and the increase in the assessment was arbitrary, excessive, unreasonable, oppressive and discriminatory and that therefore there should be a declaration that theincrease in asessment was void, and unenforceable and permanent injunction restraining the Municipality for enforcing the payment of the tax by the appellant in accordance with the revised assessment for the half yearly ending in October, 1965 and March, 1976.

2. The respondent-Municipality resisted the suit contending that on inspection of these buildings it was found that they were under the assessee and consequenly the annual rental value of the buildings was refixed having regard to the letting value of the buildings and special notices were duly issued and the objections of the appellant were considered by the commissiner and only thereafter the revised assessment was made and the appellant who should have remitted the tax assessed and preferred the appeals to the councilfiled appeals to the council without remitting the tax assessed and consequently the appeals were dismissed and the assessment has become final and. it is not open to the appellant to re-agitate the matter in a civil Court action and the suit was bound to be dismissed as barred under the provisions of the District Municipalities Act.

3. The learned District Munsif found that the increase of assessment in respect of Door No. 58 was not valid, but so far as the assessment in respect of Door Nos. 16, 16-1 were concerned they were quite valid. He further found that the suit in respect of Door No. 16 and 16-A-1 was barred while the suit in respect of Door No. 58 was not barred under section 354 of the Act. On these findings the learned District Munsif passed, a decree declaring that the increase of assessment for Door No . 58 and the tax demands in pursuance of it was illegal and granting permanent injunction restraining the respondent from taking coercive steps against the appellant from enforcing the increased assessment in respect of Door No. 58.

4. The respondent-Municipality thereupon preferred appeal Suit No. 43 of 1971 while the appellant filed A.S. N . 44 of 1971 in the Court of the Sub ordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, against the judgment and decree of the learned . District Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge however, found that revised assessments of the three buildings were valid and the suit was barred under section 354 of the Act and he allowed A.S.No. 43 of 1971 preferred by the Municipality, in reg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document