JUDGMENT T.C. Shrivastava, J. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the Appellant for refund of the amount of taxes which were realized from him by the Respondent during the three years before suit. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court, but it was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. This appeal was first placed before Tare J. who was of the opinion that it involved some points of public importance. It has, therefore, been heard by us as a Division Bench. The Appellant owns several houses in Jabalpur which have been assessed to conservancy and water tax. Some of these houses are divided into several tenements only one of which has a private latrine. The tenants of the other tenements used this latrine. The assessment has been made on all these tenements as separate units. Houses Nos. 209 and 245/7 are garages and houses Nos. 213, 244/1 and 244/2 are used as godowns. The Plaintiff's case was that the assessment of conservancy and water tax on the several tenements, when there was not a private latrine or a separate water-tap in them, is ultra vires. The godown and garages were not at all liable to be assessed to any tax. Several errors in the calculation of the assessment were also pointed out in the plaint. The Defendant admitted that the taxes had been realized, but stated that this was properly done according to rules which were within the powers granted under Section 66 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Defendant further pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction and the claim for refund was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the assessment was valid except for the tax charged on the godowns and the garages. It held that the Court could not go into the errors of calculation in assessment, but was competent to grant relief if the assessment was in excess of the powers of the Act. The claim was decreed for refund of amount realized for the godowns and the garages. Against this decree, the Defendant filed an appeal and the Plaintiff filed a cross-objection. As already stated, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. The claim was decreed for refund of amount realized for the godowns and the garages. Against this decree, the Defendant filed an appeal and the Plaintiff filed a cross-objection. As already stated, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. The Plaintiff has filed this second appeal, but the claim is restricted to refund of the tax assessed on the godowns and garages which comes to Rs, 219-3-0 and the tax assessed on house No. 216 which is Rs. 78-12-0 for conservancy and Rs. 41-4-0 for water rate. Both the Courts below have held that the assessment and errors of calculation therein cannot be challenged in a civil Court, as Section 84(3) of the Act declares the assessment final. Under the Act, Assessees are given a right to challenge the assessment by a special procedure. However, if the assessment is ultra vires, the civil Court has power to grant relief. On the question of limitation, both the Courts below have held that a suit for refund of validly assessed taxes must be brought within six months under Section 49 of the Act; but that section has no application to assessments which are without jurisdiction. These conclusions are not disputed before us. The rule relating to imposition of conservancy tax, which has been referred to in arguments before us, is as follows: There shall be imposed- (a) On every building fitted with a private latrine or any inmate whereof uses a private latrine, cleansed by municipal servants, a latrine tax. (c) On every building of annual letting value of more than Rs. 6 without a private latrine and the compound whereof is not cleansed by municipal servants and also buildings fitted with septic tank latrines, a tax for the maintenance of public latrines. Every person not using a private latrine shall be deemed to use a public latrine. The tax referred to in this rule will be imposed on the annual letting value of a building according to the following scale, for city area:-- NOTES:- (i) .. (ii) Where a house consists of more than one block, the occupants of every such block shall be presumed to use the latrine attached to any of the building in which the house is divided, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the committee. The relevant rules regarding assessment of that tax are as follows:- 10. (ii) Where a house consists of more than one block, the occupants of every such block shall be presumed to use the latrine attached to any of the building in which the house is divided, unless the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the committee. The relevant rules regarding assessment of that tax are as follows:- 10. (a) Where more than one family having separate sources of income occupy separate portions of the same building or range of buildings, each of such portion shall be deemed a building under these rules and assessed according to its gross annual letting value as determined in accordance with Rule 1. (a) When the conservancy service is granted for the first time or is granted after it had been stopped on any date subsequent to the first ninety days of a half year, half the rate for that half-year shall be payable. In all other cases full rate shall be charged irrespective of the date of commencement or recommencement of the service. (b) When in the case of a building or land with a latrine, written notice is served on the committee during the first ninety days of a half-year, asking for service to be stopped, only half the rate for that half-year shall be payable: Provided that if such notice is not served on or before the 80th day of the half-year the full rate shall be charged unless the service is actually stopped before the expiry of the 90th day. In case the building or land continues to remain vacant, it shall be exempt from the payment of tax under Section 66(1)(h) but shall be liable to the payment of the tax under Section 66(1)(j). NOTE.- A house shall be considered vacant when it is not occupied by any human being or a horse, pony, mule, ass, ox, cow, buffalo, camel or elephant and when it is not afforded any municipal service. The first contention for the Appellant is that the assessment of the tax on the rental assessment of the house is ultra vires of the Act. Shri B.C. Verma refers to Section 66, Sub-section (1), Clause (a), which refers to a tax payable on "the gross annual value of the buildings" and argues that the tax as imposed could only be under this clause. Shri B.C. Verma refers to Section 66, Sub-section (1), Clause (a), which refers to a tax payable on "the gross annual value of the buildings" and argues that the tax as imposed could only be under this clause. It will be noticed that the power for imposition referred to in the notification imposing conservancy tax is not Clause (a), but Clauses (b) and (j). These latter two clauses refer directly to a tax on latrines and conservancy tax. Clause (a) and Clauses (h) and (j) contemplate two entirely different taxes. Nothing is stated in the Clauses (h) and (j) about the measure or the criterion with reference to which this tax is to be imposed. The matter has been left to the State Government under Sub-section (2) of that section. It is true that the tax could have varied according to the number of latrines or it could have been according to the number of persons using the latrines. However, there is nothing illegal in imposing the tax according to the rental assessment of the building. In accordance with the well-known canons of taxation, a tax can be according to the service rendered or it could be according to the capacity of the Assessee to pay. The total expense incurred in maintaining conservancy services can thus be realized by imposing a heavier burden on the richer section of the society. The tax could be based on any reasonable measure for the capacity to pay. It is erroneous to contend that a tax with reference to rental assessment could only be imposed under Clause (a) and rental assessment could not be made a measure for any other tax. The State Government has made the rules under Sub-section (2) and any objection to the particular method adopted could be taken when those rules were framed. We hold that the conservancy tax and the water tax which have both been imposed in proportion to rental assessment are valid. Next, it is urged that a house having a private latrine in one of its several tenements could not be assessed with reference to the value of the several tenements separately. It is not disputed that the assessment has been made according to Rule 10 of the Assessment Rules. However, it is contended that the rule itself is in excess of the powers in Section 66(1), Clauses (h) and (j). It is not disputed that the assessment has been made according to Rule 10 of the Assessment Rules. However, it is contended that the rule itself is in excess of the powers in Section 66(1), Clauses (h) and (j). According to the learned advocate for the Appellant, there could not be any latrine tax on the tenement which has no private latrine. There is no merit in this contention. Section 66 (1), Clause (h) gives power to impose "a latrine or conservancy tax payable by the occupier upon private latrines cleansed by municipal agency". It is nowhere said in this clause that a private latrine must be situated in the house which is assessed to tax. The tax is payable for private latrines and one who uses such latrines can be assessed to such tax even though he has no latrine in his house. Shri B.C. Verma points out that this could not be the meaning of the rule, as otherwise a guest using the latrine could be made liable. Theoretically this may be possible; but rules for imposition of taxes have to be practicable, convenient and certain. Assessments cannot be made every day. A broad and general scheme to cover the usual cases yielding substantial amount has to be framed in matters of imposition of taxes. To treat the tenement of a house occupied by a family having an independent income is, in our opinion, eminently reasonable and practicable and if the State Government approved such a scheme under the powers given to them under Section 66(2), there is an end of the matter. The imposition cannot be said to be improper if it ignores the guests coming to an occupant or the number of members in the occupant's family or some other details of this kind. What is to be seen is whether the matter is within the taxing power and we have no doubt that Rule 10 is within the powers granted under Section 66(1)(h). It will be observed that under Clause (h) a tax is imposed on account of private latrines and under Clause (j) a tax is imposed for the maintenance of public latrines. The tatter tax is imposed on occupiers of houses having no private latrines on the presumption that they use public latrines [vide Rule 1, Clause (c)]. It will be observed that under Clause (h) a tax is imposed on account of private latrines and under Clause (j) a tax is imposed for the maintenance of public latrines. The tatter tax is imposed on occupiers of houses having no private latrines on the presumption that they use public latrines [vide Rule 1, Clause (c)]. In the instant case, no such presumption could be drawn in the case of the Plaintiff's tenants. Note (ii) under Rule 1 raises a presumption that the residents of different parts of the house having one private latrine are all using the private latrine, unless the contrary is proved. The rule cannot be said to be unreasonable, as the presumption raised is rebuttable. The Plaintiff could have proved that his tenants were using a public latrine if he wanted to bring his case under Clause (c). He did not do so and the presumption under Note (ii) thus stood unrebutted. As regards the garages and godowns, which are vacant within the meaning of the Note below Rule 11 of the Assessment Rules, no tax has been imposed under Clause (h). They have been assessed only to the compulsory rate under Clause (j). A tax for the maintenance of public latrine can be imposed upon anyone, as it is in the interest of all residents that such latrines should exist for better sanitation. Rule 11 authorises the imposition of such tax in respect of vacant houses also and it cannot be said that the imposition is ultra vires. The language of Clause (j) is wide enough to cover such a tax. Turning now to the water tax, it was stated in the written statement that only compulsory water rate has been charged. Under Clause (k) of Section 66(1), read with Rule 9 of the Imposition Rules, there is authority to charge such a rate. This tax is charged for the maintenance of public pipes. No specific ground challenging the imposition of the water rate as ultra vires is mentioned in the grounds of appeal. We do not, therefore, express any opinion whether the imposition is in excess of the powers of Section 66(1)(k) of the Act, In the absence of any specific grounds, the decision of the lower appellate Court stands. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed