THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 238 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 26.04.2005 in M.A.No.34 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein the appellant herein has challenged the enhancement of the tax for the building under his occupation. The Municipal Corporation-respondent has proposed to enhance the tax from Rs.271.86 paise to Rs.6,047/- with effect from 01.04.1996 and that was claimed to be exhorbitant. The appellant claimed to have filed the objections and personal hearing was also conducted and after hearing the appellant, the Corporation confirmed the rental value at Rs.2.50 paise per sq. feet in respect of non-residential building and Rs.1/- per sq. feet for residential building. A rent for 576 sq. feet, which is taken as area of the ground floor and mezzanine floor and the first floor is said to be consisting of 288 sq. feet, which is a residential portion. The lower Court has perused the records and found that there is fixation of rent and reduced the monthly rental value for non-residential building at Rs.2/- per sq. feet and for the residential building at Rs.1/- per sq. feet and ordered to recover the enhanced tax with effect from 01.04.2000. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no permission by the Government to enhance the tax and the rental value of neighbours was not taken into consideration and there is also an error in considering the area of the building for imposition of the tax and, therefore, the order of the lower Court suffers from infirmity. Evidently, this is a Second Appeal against the order of the lower Court and unless there is a substantial question of law, the interference with regard to a question of fact, which has been determined by the lower Court, is not warranted. As can be seen from the order of the lower Court, the records have been perused, the appellant was said to have been heard by the Commissioner and the area under occupation has been determined. During the course of hearing before the lower Court, no attempt was made to get the Commissioner appointed to verify the area of occupation, and at this stage in the Second Appeal, such a request cannot be entertained. So far as the comparative rental value of the neighbours is concerned, evidently, the appellant was given an opportunity by the Commissioner and all the facts were taken into consideration and the lower Court also has reduced the rental value for the non-residential building from Rs.2-50 paise to Rs.2/-. Therefore, on a question of fact, the lower Court having heard the learned counsel and also perused the record, came to the conclusion that in the Second Appeal, it is not permissible to this Court to interfere with the finding of the fact. So far as the permission of the Government for enhancement of the tax is concerned, it is not necessary since the Municipal Corporation itself is an independent entity, which can impose the tax from time to time by the resolution passed by the Corporation. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 30-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No. 238 of 2005 DATE: 30-08-2011 MR