Judgment This revision is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli dismissing an appeal preferred to him against the order of the learned District Munsif dismissing the suit filed by the present petitioner as the plaintiff against the respondent municipality to recover a sum of Rs.44-4-0 said to be he excess property tax collected from him for the two half years of 1949-50 and the first half year of 1950-51. The house in question was constructed by the petitioner about the year 1939 and thereafter the assessment was made on the basis of the gross annual value of Rs. 360. That continued till 1949 when there was a quinquennial revision of the assessment, and when the gross annual value was fixed by the municipality at Rs.480. It was on that basis the tax was enhanced giving rise to the difference of Rs.44-4-0 which was claimed in the suit. The main contention that was urged in the Courts below as well as in this revision is that the municipality had no reasons to enhance the gross annual value which prevailed till 1949 and that that value should have been based upon the fair rent which may be fixed for the house under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Before considering that point, it is well to remember the admission made by the plaintiff himself in the statement which he made to the municipality that the estimate of the annual value of Rs. 480 arrived at by the Commissioner would be proper, if the fair rent to be fixed under the Rent Control Act were not to be taken into account. It will be seen that under section 82, clause 2 of the District Municipalities Act, it is declared that the annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year. As I said, there is no controversy that, if let, the gross annual value of the house would certainly be Rs. 480 if not more. But the contention is, if the fair rent which the Rent Controller may fix were to be taken into account, then the gross annual value fixed by the municipality would be unreasonable and excessive. As I said, there is no controversy that, if let, the gross annual value of the house would certainly be Rs. 480 if not more. But the contention is, if the fair rent which the Rent Controller may fix were to be taken into account, then the gross annual value fixed by the municipality would be unreasonable and excessive. The question is whether for the purpose of ascertaining the reasonableness of the rental value under section 82(2) the municipality should be guided by the fair rent that may be fixed by the Rent Controller under the House Rent Control Act. It must be borne in mind that the latter Act is a special Act intended to achieve certain special purposes. There is no connection between the one enactment and the other, though both have been passed by the same legislature. The House Rent Control Act is intended to serve certain definite purposes. Supposing the State passes another enactment saying that in the municipality no tenant shall pay rent to the landlord, it cannot be contended that the municipality will be precluded from collecting any property-tax. If the Rent Control Act goes out of consideration, then there can be no question that the rental value adopted by the municipality was reasonable within the meaning of the District Municipalities Act. I, therefore, think that there is no point for interference in this Revision, and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. R.M. ----- Revision dismissed.