THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.NO.25 OF 2009 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the Government questioning the order dated 04-12-2007 of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in C.M.A.No.24 of 2006 setting aside the enhancement of the tax. The assessee was the owner of the premises bearing D.No.12-13- 50, Abdul Khadar Street, Vijayawada and was originally paying tax of Rs.926/- and a special notice was served on him proposing enhancement of tax to Rs.2175/- w.e.f 01-10-2005. The appellant claims to have submitted a revision on 31-03-2006 and the tax was fixed @ 1869/- and consequently it was sought to be set aside. It was contended before the lower court that there is no mention as to how the Corporation has arrived at the rental value and there is no material as to the basis of the division of the zones and therefore the assessment is not valid. According to the appellant, spot inspection was conducted and measurements were taken for the ground and first floors and there is no clear mention as to what was the rent being fetched for the ground floor and there was no local enquiry and the reasons were not properly given. The lower court found that having received the revision petition, the Corporation should have conducted the enquiry to arrive at the conclusion but no proper hearing was given and the endorsement was passed and therefore the appeal was allowed. It is contended by the appellant herein that the lower court has failed to take into consideration that proper procedure was followed and the measurements were taken in the presence of the appellant. The enhancement in this case was sought to be made by a special notice and it is not a case of general revision. Ex.R-3 is the assessment form and it shows the ground floor is a shop and the first floor is a residence occupied by the owner. Evidently, no rental values were given by the appellant. Ex.R-1 is the notice showing that the rental value was fixed @ 4,500/- and the reasons for the revision was the change of the user. Ex.R- 2 is the objections filed by the assessee and it does not show as to what was the actual rental value. It only questioned the measurements taken by the Corporation and mentioned in Ex.R-1. Evidently, the assessee has not produced the earlier record of the assessment. Though the assessee has not produced any material about the factual rental value it has been reduced by the Corporation to Rs.12,105/-. In fact the nature of the change of user of the ground floor is not seriously disputed. Even before the lower court no material is filed to show that the rental value fixed by the Corporation is abnormal. It cannot be lost sight that there is general increase in the rental value of the buildings and when once there is a change of user naturally there will be a increase in the rental value and consequently the Corporation can only determine the rental value on hypothetical basis after taking into consideration the local rents and the use of the land. The order of the lower court does not speak about the contentions of the Corporation and in fact when once the change of user is made as the basis of revision of the tax and which fact is not disputed or denied, then the enhancement of the tax by the Municipality cannot be faulted. The question about the non-publication of the zonal regulations and non-publication of the rental values is of no consequence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order of the lower court is against the law and is accordingly liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 24-08-2011 TSNR