THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 36 of 2003 DATE: 20-06-2011 Between: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division. .. Appellant And Govindlal .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 36 of 2003 JUDGMENT: No representation for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It is represented that the appeal was filed in M.A.No. 479 of 1997 by the tenant in possession of the property and not by the owner of the property. In fact, as can be seen from the contentions of the appellant that after considering the objections raised by the respondent and after hearing the respondent, who represented the owner, the Corporation has reduced the annual rental value from Rs.17,280/- to Rs.13,824/- and a final order was passed on 31.03.1997 but that was not challenged and only the demand notice given earlier for enhancing the tax was challenged. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is remanded to the lower Court to consider as to whether the Corporation has heard and passed any orders after hearing the objections of the respondent and if so, whether a further challenge of the notice is maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the lower Court and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 20-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 36 of 2003 DATE: 20-06-2011 MR