( 1. ) THE order in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Civil revisions Nos. 179 of 1985 (Municipal Corporation, Indore vs. Rakesh), 180/85 (Municipal Corporation vs. Rajendra Kumar), 226/85 (Municipal Corporation vs. Anil Agrawal) and 227/85 (Municipal Corporation, Indore vs. Dinesh ).

( 2. ) ALL these revisions are filed by the Municipal Corporation, Indore, against a common order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1983 by the 7th Addl. Judge to the court of the District Judge, Indore, dated 22-2-1985. The other revisions arise out of the common but separate orders passed in different appeals filed by the respective assessees. In all these revisions, a common question of law is involved and as such they are disposed of by one order.

( 3. ) THE brief facts are that in civil revision No. 184 of 1985, the non-applicant shailendra Kumar Agrawal is the owner of house No. 11/1, Prince Yeshwant Road, indore. This building was let out to Central Government for use as Post Office. The learned counsel for the assessee informs that an eviction suit was filed against the government in which a decree was passed in favour of the assessee landlord. That decree was maintained upto the stage of second appeal whereafter it was put to execution. During the pendency of execution proceedings, a portion of the house in occupation of the post office, was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short the Act ). Originally the rent of the building was charged at Rs. 700/- p. m. After requisition under the Act, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2950/- per month, was determined under Section 8 of the Act as payable by the Central Government to the assessee. In view of the increase in the amount payable by the Central Government to the assessee landlord, the corporation reassessed the portion in occupation of the Post Office and demanded tax at the increased rate, determined in proportion to the increase in the payment of compensation. Against this order, appeal was filed by the assessee in the district court, which by the impugned order, was set aside and the original rental value of the portion, determined at the rate of Rs. 700/- p. m. , was maintained. In view of the said legal position, other appeals were also disposed of. Aggrieved by all those separate but common orders, the Municipal Corporation has filed these revisions.

( 4. ) SECTION 138 (b) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the corporation Act) provides that for the purpose of assessing land or building to property tax, the annual value of any building shall be the gross annual rent at which such building may be let for use or enjoyment therewith, less the allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building. Explanation II thereunder provides that the term "gross annual rent" shall not include any tax payable by the owner in respect of which the owner and tenant have agreed that it shall be paid by tenant. Thus, for assessment of property tax of any land or building, the Corporation has to determine the annual value. The annual value is the gross annual rent at which the building or land may be let, less ten per cent for repairs.

( 5. ) THE contention on behalf of the Corporation is that the gross annual rent of the building in question is, twelve times the monthly compensation being paid by the central Government for use and enjoyment of the building to the assessee landlord less ten per cent thereof. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the compensation determined under Section 8 of the Act as payable by the Central Government to the owner of the building is rent contemplated by Section 138 of the Corporation Act.

( 6. ) AS seen above, what is essential under section 138 of the Corporation Act, is to find out the rent at which the building may be let for use or enjoyment in other words the sum payable by the assessee to the lessor in co