****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.

1. The appellant-defendant, being profoundly aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 23.10.1999, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, respectfully prefers this Regular Second Appeal (for short ‘RSA’) under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Lower Appellate Court erroneously reversed the well-reasoned findings and decree dated 24.04.1999, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana.

1.1. The appellant-corporation seeks the restoration of the decree originally granted by the learned Trial Court, contending that the impugned determination is vitiated by manifest perversity, egregious errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record. It is respectfully submitted that the reversal of the court of first instance has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice, necessitating the intervention of this Court. Accordingly, the appellant-Corporation prays for the setting aside of the impugned judgment and the reinstatement of the lawful decree passed by the learned Trial Court to ensure the ends of justice are met.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly delineated as under:-

The plaintiffs asserted themselves to be the lawful owners of the property in dispute and challenged the demand of ₹ 9,072/- raised by the defendant–Municipal Corporation towards house tax for the assessment years 1995–96 and 1996–97. The impugned demand, communicated through notice issued under Section 103 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, was alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, the stated basis for enhancement being the alleged division of the property, which, according to the plaintiffs, does not constitute a valid ground for reassessment under the Act.

It was further pleaded that the property had been let out at a monthly rent of ₹ 1,000/- and, being situated within the municipal limits of Ludhiana, was governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, thereby requiring assessment in accordance therewith. The plaintiffs also alleged violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to them and their objections were not duly considered.

The assessment was further assailed as excessive, arbitrary, and unsupported by any material change in the property, particularly when the house tax for the preceding assessment year 1994–95 had been fixed at merely ₹ 324/-. On these premises, the plaintiffs sought declaration of the impugned demand as null and void along with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. Upon notice of the suit, the defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement, raising both preliminary objections as well as submissions on merits. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood expressly barred under Section 149 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and further that the suit was not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 396 of the Act prior to its institution.

3.1. On merits, the defendants averred that during the assessment year 1995–96, the property in question was reassessed owing to its division, and consequently, notice under Section 103 of the Act was duly served upon the plaintiffs, which was admittedly received by plaintiff Raj Rani on 16.02.1996 in the office of the defendant–Corporation. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were duly called upon to appear before the Assessing Authority on 29.02.1996, and after affording an opportunity of hearing and considering their objections, the Assessing Authority validly passed the assessment order dated 29.02.1996, whereby the annual rental value of the property was fixed at ₹ 33,600/-.

3.2. The defendants further asserted that the pro