IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH [19TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.S.A.No.18 of 2002 Between: H.D.Satyanandam …Appellant And: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.S.A.No.18 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2002 in M.A.No.194 of 1999 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the appeal filed by the appellant herein, assailing the demand for payment of tax at Rs.12,246/- per annum on the annual rental value of Rs.42,000/- was partly allowed, directing the respondents-Corporation to collect the tax as demanded from 01.04.1999. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the appellant is the owner of the premises bearing No.1-8-721, situated at Prakasham Nagar, Secunderabad, with plinth areas of 3552 sft. and having three floors and that the same is used for running a school. The respondents-Corporation enhanced the annual rental value from Rs.1,080/- to Rs.42,000/- and fixed the tax at Rs.12,246/- per annum and demanded payment of the same from 01.04.1994 by issuing demand notice dated 27.03.1999. Assailing the said notice, the appellant filed M.A.No.194 of 1999. Learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, on perusing the record and in view of the plinth area and the nature of the building and the use building is put to and rent collected from the tenant, held that the respondents-Corporation rightly fixed the monthly rental value at Rs.3,500/- by assessing the tax at Rs.1/- per sft. and the annual rental value, therefore, comes to Rs.42,000/- and proportionately the tax was enhanced to Rs.12,246/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the enhancement is highly excessive, cannot be countenanced, as the previous annual rental value of Rs.1,080/- was fixed many years ago and the same has no relevance to the situation obtaining as on the date of revision of assessment in 1999. As the revision was made in 1999, the demand for payment of tax from 1994 is held to be unjustified and the learned Chief Judge rightly directed to pay the tax from 1.4.1999. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Chief Judge, does not, therefore, call for any interference in this appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.02.2010 bss