JUDGMENT

Hari Swarup, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition by which he had challenged the assessment of annual value made by the authorities under the U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act). The building in dispute is a cinema building. The assessing authority has held that it was a building not covered by the category of buildings mentioned in clause (a) of Section 140 (1) of the Act. In appeal the same view was accepted. According to the appellant, the `cinema building' was a building of the category mentioned in clause (a) and the determination of the-annual value for such a building by applying the principles laid down in clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 140 was erroneous. The petitioner also challenged the quantum of the annual value assessed by the assessing and the appellate authorities. They had relied on an agreement between the appellant and the distributors and held that the amount payable to the appellant under the agreement represented the rent of the building. According to the appellant the agreement between him and the distributors was not in the nature of a lease and the authorities were in error in construing it as a lease deed-and in holding that the building had actually been let out. The learned single Judge held that the view taken by the assessing authorities that the cinema building was not covered by the category of building mentioned in Section 140 (1) (a) was correct and the interpretation placed by them on the aforesaid document did not suffer from any manifest error of law. In respect of the actual amount assessed in appeal against the assessment order, the learned single Judge held that the determination suffered from no manifest error of law. On these findings the petition was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant re-agitated the same points before us. Sec. 140(1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act reads as under

"140. (1) `Annual value' means, -

(a) in the case of railway stations, hotels, colleges, schools, hospitals, factories and other such buildings, a proportion not exceeding five per centum to be fixed by rule made in this behalf of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building to the estimated value of the land appurtenant thereto; and

(b) In the case of a building or land not falling within the provisions of clause (a), the gross annual rent for which such building, exclusive of furniture or machinery therein, or such land is actually let or where the building or land is not let or in the opinion of the board is let for a sum less than its fair letting value might reasonably be expected to let from year to year." The assessing authority and the appellate authority interpreted the clauses (a) and (b) and held that clause (a) applied to such buildings which are seldom or never let out and clause (b) applied to buildings which are usually let out or may be let out if so desired by the owner. The learned single Judge observed that clause (b) covers buildings which are often let out so as to yield rent and clause (a) deals will buildings which are seldom or never let out. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. The purpose of determining the annual valuation of buildings is the levy of taxes under the Act. Clause (b), in our opinion, is the clause which applies to all buildings except those which are covered by clause (a). Clause (a) deals with a special category of buildings which neither car nor normally are let out. Railway stations, colleges, schools and hospitals cannot be let out. Hotels and factories can only seldom be let out. All other buildings are covered by clause (b). The assessing authority, on a consideration of the evidence regarding the letting out of cinema buildings at Varanasi, came to the conclusion that cinema buildings such as the one in dispute were normally let out. This finding was not even challenged be