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.31 of 2000 Between: S.N.Palparthy [died] by LRs …Appellants And: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.S.A.No.31 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.04.1998 in M.A.No.96 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the appeal filed by the appellants herein, was partly allowed, making the demand notice dated 14.03.1996 issued by the respondent-Corporation effective from 01.04.1994 instead of 01.04.1993, but, however not interfered with the demand made therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the appellants are the owners of the building bearing D.No.3-6-286/215 and previously, the annual rental value of the said building was fixed at Rs.15,600/- and in the impugned notice dated 14.03.1996, the respondent-Corporation reduced the annual rental value to Rs.7,200/-. Pursuant to the application filed by the appellants seeking reduction, the respondent-Corporation, however, stated that the annual tax is fixed at Rs.2,100/- with effect from 01.04.1993 and demanded payment of the tax at the said rate with arrears. Aggrieved by the said demand, the appellants filed M.A.No.96 of 1996 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge passed rather non-speaking and cryptic order directing that the demand notice be made effective from 01.04.1994 instead of 01.04.1993 and observing that the tax was correctly assessed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that while the annual rental value was fixed at Rs.15,600/-, the tax paid was only Rs.770/- per annum, whereas, after reducing the annual rental value to half and fixing the same at Rs.7,200/-, the tax was, however, enhanced by three times to Rs.2,100/- per annum, which is totally disproportionate with the annual rental value. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellants produced tax receipts pertaining to the years 1993-94 showing the payment of half-yearly tax of Rs.356/- which comes to Rs.712/- per annum. When the respondent-Corporation reduced the annual rental value to Rs.7,200/- from Rs.15,600/-, the tax also ought to have been proportionately reduced but, on the other hand, it was enhanced by almost three times to Rs.2,100/-. Learned Chief Judge in the impugned order without considering the said aspect, merely directed that the demand notice dated 14.03.1996 shall come in to force from 01.04.1994 instead of 01.04.1993. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order, is therefore, held liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to assess the appropriate tax for the building bearing No.3-6-286/215 proportionate to the reduced annual rental value, which is fixed by them at Rs.7,200/- and collect the tax accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.02.2010 bss