HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.1 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in M.A.No.79 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. 2. The appellant is said to be the owner of the premises situated at 3rd floor and running the bank. The notice for enhancement of the tax was given and on 01.04.1999 the rental value was fixed by the Corporation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sft., whereas the lower appellate Court on considering the location of the building and also the fact that in similarly situated premises the rental value was fixed at Rs.6/- per sft., and applied the same rental value. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the respondent and the Judgment of the appellate Court are incorrect since no reasons were given by the respondent, whereas the appellate Court has taken into consideration as if the premises was leased out to the bank under a lease deed and there was a tenant, which fact is incorrect. In fact, the appellant is owner and is in occupation of the premises. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, according to him, there is an error committed by the appellate Court in coming to the conclusion about the imposition of the tax since it was not leased out to the third party and it was in occupation of the owner of the building. He further submits that the premises is in the third floor and that whereas for the ground floor in the same building a lesser rental value was fixed per sft., and the fixation of Rs.6/- per sft., as rental value is unreasonable. He concedes that if a rental value is fixed at Rs.4/- per sft, it will meet the ends of justice. 4. Taking into consideration of the above fact and also the personal occupation of the bank as owner of the premises, and also keeping in view that the reasons given by the respondent are not clear for enhancement of the rental value, the rental value is, therefore, fixed at Rs.4/- per sft., instead of Rs.6/- per sft., as fixed by the lower appellate Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:06.09.2011 INL