Order levying property tax not sustainable.

The plaintiff who has lost in both the courts below has preferred this Appeal. She is the owner of the premises bearing door No.33, Kothawal Street, Alandur. property tax for this property which was originally Rs.92-70 per half year was increased to Rs.927.00 per half year. There was no notice served on the appellant revision. Besides the assessment No.9217 was split into three bearing numbers as 92/8, 92/9. The plaintiff filed revision and appeal to the Municipality on which Municipality did not pass any orders. So she instituted O.S.No.505 of 1972 in the District Munsif, Poonamalle for declaration that the enhanced assessment is illegal and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent municipality from collecting the enhanced rate.

2. The municipality resisted the suit contending that when their Bill Collector inspected premises he found that the appellant has converted the premises into 17 tenements. He able to gather information from 15 tenants that applicant was collecting a rent of Rs.623 month from them. On the basis of the information gathered at the time of inspection of Bill Collector the annual rental value was fixed at Rs.7,200 and the tax was enhanced accordingly. Special notice was issued to the appellant prior to the enhancement and same has been acknowledged by the appellant ’ s husband. A personal enquiry was held instance of the appellant in the revision preferred by her and the enhanced assessment confirmed after another inspection by the Municipal Authorities. The appellant has preferred any appeal under Rule 23(c) of Schedule 4 of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities The respondent Municipality has followed the procedure prescribed in the District Municipalities Act in increasing the assessment.

3. In both the courts below it was argued on behalf of the appellant that in arriving at rental value of the premises, the Municipality has not followed the provisions of District Municipalities Act and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and hence enhancement should be held to be illegal on the basis of the judgment in Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers ’ Association, (1971)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 S.C.J. 142: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 353. However both the courts below took view that the evidence of D.W.I that the Commissioner examined the tenants of the premises and took into consideration the provisions of the Rent Control Act was sufficient even though no document was available to show that such procedure as required under the Rent Control Act had been followed. The lower Appellate Court held that the decision in Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers ’ Association, (1971)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 S.C.J. 142: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 353, will not apply to the facts of this since the impugned building herein has been rented out to the tenants and accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment.

4. The substantial questions of law that have been formulated for consideration Second Appeal are: (1) Whether the Courts below erred in not, applying the ratio decidendi of the Supreme in Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers ‘Association, (1971)2 M.L.J. 7: (1971)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 S.C.J. 142: A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 355? (2) Whether Courts below are right in holding that the municipality can make an assessment on the of rent and not in accordance with the fair rent fixed under the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960?

5. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Rate Payers’ Association, (1971)2M.L.J. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 7: (1971)2 142: A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 353, the appellant herein contended before the lower Appellate that the Municipality has not followed the basis prescribed under the provisions of the Control Act in arriving at the rental value of the building. The Municipality on its part that though it has taken into consideration the provision