HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.60 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed against the order in M.A.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the enhancement of tax proposed by the respondent was questioned. 2. The Annual Rental Value was fixed by the respondent at the rate of Rs.47,52,000/- taking into consideration the prevailing rental value and fixed the annual tax at Rs.13,85,683/-. The lower Court has taken into consideration the lease deed dated 21.06.2004, which shows that a sum of Rs.6/- is paid per sft., towards rent and a sum of Rs.5/- was paid for providing amenities and therefore, accordingly the amount paid towards the amenities cannot be taken into consideration and directed the respondent to fix the rental value taking into consideration the annual rent per sft., as per the lease agreement. 3. According to the counsel for the appellant even this fixation is not correct since there are other amenities like lift, lift boy and water, which have been provided and they are also to be excluded and the rate at Rs.3/- per sft., will be a reasonable rent, which the lower Court should have decided. 4. Evidently, this is a second appeal and the question of interference is very much limited except with regard to a question of law. The lower Court has taken into consideration the lease deed, which shows that a sum of Rs.6/- was fixed as rent per sft., and separate provision was made for amenities. Therefore, when the parties have contracted declaring their intention as to what the component of the rent and what is the component of the amenities, the further reduction of the value of rent towards amenities as claimed by the appellant does not arise. The lower Court has taken into consideration as per the lease deed, which was filed before the lower Court and I do not think that there is any factual error committed by the lower Court and it is not a case of legal error to be interfered by the appellate Court. Therefore, there are no grounds in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:29.08.2011 INL