( 1. ) THIS revision petition under Section 392 of the M. P. Municipal corporation Act (for short the Act) is directed against the appellate order dated 18-2-1987 passed by the VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, indore in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 131 of 1986.

( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision petition are these. The respondent owns and posesses immovable property within the jurisdiction of the municipal Corporation, Indore (for short the Corporation ). Notice dated 13-9-1985 under Section 146 of the Act was served on the respondent. Objections to the same along with grounds were delivered at the Municipal office as required under Section 147 of the Act and the Special Assessment Officer, by his order dated 28-6-1986 decided the objections and instead of Rs. 6,70,424. 40 p. as stated in the notice the tax was reduced to Rs. 5,08,208. 76 p. and made payable from 1-4-1985.

( 3. ) AGGRIEVED by the order aforesaid the present respondent preferred an appeal as provided under Section 149 of the Act. By the impugned order passed in appeal, the case has been remanded on the ground that the enhancement in the assessment has not been done after determining the standard rent and also on the ground that property tax cannot be levied with retrospective effect.

( 4. ) THE contention of the Corporation in this Court is that the notice under section 146 of the Act was proper and the impugned order remanding the case is unwarranted.

( 5. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that determination of standard rent constitutes a pre-condition for enhancement and the impugned order is proper.

( 6. ) THE point for determination is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

( 7. ) IN the decision in J. C. Mills Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, 1985 M. P. L. J. 380, it has been held that unless there is a legal and proper notice to the occupier as required by section 146, jurisdiction thereunder regarding enhancement of valuation of property and imposition of property tax on that basis cannot be invoked. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision in J. C. Mills case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is urged that in that case four alternative grounds for increase were printed but the irrelevant ones were not scored out. Such is not the situation in the instant case. The contention of the respondents learned counsel is that comparable units have not been mentioned therein and to that extent the notice is defective. He further urges that in the revision petition the direction of the appellate Court that enhancement in the assessment should be on the basis of standard rent has not been challenged and the Corporation has, therefore, to proceed in accordance with that direction by the appellate Court.

( 8. ) FOR the purposes of assessing land or building to property tax the annual value of land or building has to be ascertained as required under Section 138 of the Act.

( 9. ) WHEN the Corporation intends to increase the valuation of any property for the purposes of property tax it has to issue notice as required under Section 146 of the Act. As to the requirement of the notice the decision in Badalchands case, (1987) (1) MPWN 194 is pertinent.

( 10. ) IN the decision in Ratna Prabhas case, AIR 1977 SC 308 it has been held that where the building has never been let out, the question of fixing its standard rent does not arise and reasonable rent may as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act be fixed without regard to the provisions of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

( 11. ) IN the decision in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoors case, AIR 1980 SC 541 the correctness of the decision rendered in Ratna Prabhas case (supra) has been doubted and it has been held that where the building is governed by Rent Control legislation, the annual value cannot exceed the standard rent and that the fact that the lendlord is actually receiving higher r