THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009. C.M.S.A.No. 393 of 2004. Between: Ashok Kumar Kimtee ……Appellant vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyd., …….Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 393 of 2004. JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Judgment dt. 11.2.2004 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A.No. 57 of 2002. The M.A.No. 57 of 2002 was filed by the appellant before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad under Section 282 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 assailing the enhancement letter bearing ROC.No. 149/TC6/MCH/2001 dt. 30.3.2002. The appellant is the owner of house property bearing D.Nos. 4-5-149 and 4-5-150 situated at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The property consists of a cellar, ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor. Originally, the property in question was assessed to an annual rental value at Rs. 2,100/- and the yearly tax at Rs. 388/- which was being collected from him. However, the respondent Municipal Corporation enhanced annual rental value at Rs. 3,52,500/- and the yearly tax at Rs. 1,02,789/- calculating at Rs. 6/- per sft., in respect of cellar portion, at Rs. 10/- per sft., in respect of ground floor and at Rs. 1.50 paisa per sft., in respect of residential portion. The respondent Municipal Corporation directed the appellant to pay the revised tax with effect from 1.4.2001. Aggrieved by the revised tax, the appellant submitted a written representation on 20.3.2002 bringing forth all the issues, which are relevant to be considered before making revision of tax. But the respondent Municipal Corporation without affording any opportunity to the appellant of being heard on the said representation, issued enhancement letter bearing ROC.No. 149/TC6/MCH/2001 dt. 30.3.2002 enhancing the tax from Rs. 388/- to 1.02,789/-. Assailing the enhancement letter dt. 30.3.2002, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad under Section 282 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955. The learned Chief Judge without there being any criteria before him, fixed the rental value at Rs. 3/- per sft., for the cellar, at Rs. 6/- per sft., for ground floor and at Rs. 1.50 paisa per sft., for residential portion and consequently allowed the appeal in part. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Chief Judge, the present second appeal is filed by the appellant. At the outset, it may be mentioned that either the Respondent Municipal Corporation or the learned Chief Judge did not mention in their respective orders as to how they arrived at the rental values as stated in their orders. Thus, the earlier fixation of rental value by the respondent Municipal Corporation and the reduction given by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is without any basis. Further, the increase in the tax is in utter ignorance of G.O.Ms.No. 168 (Municipal Administration) Deparment dt. 23.3.1994. The said G.O. contemplates the procedure to be adopted for increasing the tax over and above 75%. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.Shakuntala vs. Addl. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad [1996 (2) ALT 723 (D.B.)] wherein it was held that if the demand notice is issued for payment of tax without communicating the order passed on objections, the said notice is unsustainable and a written reasoned order on objections must be communicated even though there is no specific requirement in that regard under Section 223 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act 1955. In the present case also, admittedly written objections have been filed by the appellant on 20.3.2002 but there is no written order passed by the respondent Municipal Corporation on the objections filed by the appellant, which is unsustainable, as per the decision of this Court referred supra. For all the above reasons, the Judgment of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A.No. 57 of 2002 as well as the enhancement letter bearing ROC.No. 149/TC6/MCH/2201 dt. 30.3.2002 of the respondent Municipal Corporation are set aside. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. _________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 6.11.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 393 of 2004. Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009.