THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.8 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the order dated 08- 02-2008 of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A.No.38 of 2006. The appellant herein is the owner of a building at Ramnagar, Hyderabad. The annual rental value was raised under a special notice dated 19-12-2005 to Rs.4,22,016/- and half yearly tax was fixed at Rs.61,531/- w.e.f.01-04-2005. The notice was originally served on the mother of the appellant and thereafter the appellant became the owner. The appellant has filed the objection and according to the appellant the objection was not disposed off and the tax was assessed as proposed. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad considered all the objections and found that there are no valid grounds and dismissed the appeal. On the question as to whether the enhancement of the rental value without following the procedure contemplated under the Act and without due opportunity to represent the grievance and disposal of the same, the present appeal is filed. As can be seen from the order of the lower court, the total area of the premises is 68,150 square feet and it was given to non-residential purposes. In fact, the rental value was fixed on square foot basis and after deduction of 50% under Section 212 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 the rental was fixed and tax was enhanced. The fact that the property is in a commercial locality and fetching good income. The appellant has not filed any record to show as to what was the actual rent being received by the appellant. Merely because the rental value was enhanced and tax was enhanced the appellant cannot contend that the action is arbitrary or unreasonable. It is not a case of general revision where the procedure has to be followed as laid down in the decision reported in Shan Zahoor Vs. Vijayawada Municipal Corporation [2004 (4) ALT 781] and this is a case of enhancement by issue of special notice. It cannot also be said that in this case measurements were taken, the method of fixing rental value was also intimated and beneficial deductions were also given. The order passed by the Commissioner clearly reflects the criteria on the basis of which the rental value has been fixed. The appellant could not show that the rental value was less and that the value arrived at by the Corporation is without any basis. All the principles of natural justice were followed and the objections were also considered and the lower court has considered all the decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellant and answered the same correctly. There is no error of fact or law calling for interference. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 06-07-2011 TSNR