The determination of fair rent under the Rent Control Act is crucial for property valuation, and the appellant must approach the authority for objections before resorting to civil proceedings.

The following substantial questions of law have been framed for decision in the second appeals:

"1. For assessing the value of the property for the purpose of house tax, should not the Authorities determine fair rent for the building applying the provisions for arriving at the fair rent under the Rent Control Act?

2. Can the increased tax be demanded with retrospective effect?

3. Should not the executive Authority give the reasons in Exs.A-1 to A-5 for increasing the house tax, to enable the plaintiff to avail the remedy provided to be effectively utilised?

2. Contending that the Executive Authority, Thirupattur Panchayat, had increased the annual value of the various buildings belonging to him and correspondingly the property tax, the appellant filed the suits before the District Munsif's Court, Thirupattur, seeking a declaration that the increase in tax was not valid and for injunction restraining the defendant Panchayat from collecting the tax at the revised rate.[

There were five special notices for increase of house tax issued under Rule 9(3) of the Rules framed under Section 112(2) of the Madras Village Panchayat Act, 1950. O.S.No.234/83 relates to notice for Door No.7/8-1; O.S.No.235/83 is for Door No.7/8-2; O.S.No.236/83 relates to Door No.7/8-3; and O.S.No.237/83 relates to Door No.7/8-4. The notices were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5 respectively before the trial Court. It was contended that the respondent had no power to fix the value of the building and tax arbitrarily and that the principles for fixing the fair rent under the Rent control Act had to be applied and as the respondent had not followed the procedure, the suits came to be filed.

3. The trial Court accepted the case of the appellant and decreed the suits and the notices were set aside. The respondent Panchayat filed appeals A.S.Nos.146, 147, 157 and 158 of 1986 before the Sub Court, Sivaganga. The learned Subordinate Judge, by common judgment allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. It is as against the said dismissal, the present second appeals have been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr.S. Natarajan submitted by relying on several decisions of the Supreme court and this Court that the notices issued by the respondent have been so issued arbitrarily without bothering to fix the annual value on the basis of the fair rent obtainable on the various items. According to the learned Counsel, none of the notices gives any reason for increase in the annual value and for consequent increase in the tax.

5. Except for one notice, all the other notices give the reason for increase as the increase in the rent received by the appellant. The notices further say that the appellant could within 30 days from the receipt of notice file his objections to the revision before the same authority. The appellant did not go before the respondent but chose to approach the Civil Court. The learned Subordinate Judge, while allowing the appeals filed by the respondent observed as follows:

"That the notices clearly mentioned that there was revision in the rent received by the appellant in respect of each of his properties, that in any event, the notices clearly stated that the appellant could approach the respondent within a month and without approaching the respondent, he had gone to the Civil Court."

and this would be clear from the notices themselves. Only on this short ground, the appeals were allowed. The Panchayat had a resolution passed and pursuant to the resolution, the notices had been issued. The appellant had not approached the Panchayat within the stipulated 30 days. Notices Exs.A-1 to A-5 are all dated 7-6-1983 and the plaintiff within 30 days from the receipt of notices, should have approached the respondent; instead he filed the suits on 8-8-1983.

6. In my view, it cannot be construed that the respondent had arbitrarily revised the annual valuation and consequently the tax payable by the appellant. The notices are in the nature of show cause havin