K. S. Hegde, C. J. (Oral ). ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the decision of Mahajan, J. in Civil Writ No. 29-D of 1963, wherein the respondent, namely, the Indian Bank Limited, challenged the legality of the resolution of the appellant, passed on 24/3/1961, enhancing the rental value of the premises in the possession of the respondent from Rs. 1,650. 00 to Rs. 7,200. 00 as well as the legality of the order made by the Additional District Magistrate on 7th December, 1962, affirming the resolution of the Municipal Committee. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned resolution as well as the Additional District Magistrate s order. Aggrieved by that decision. the appellant (New Delhi Municipal Committee) has filed this appeal. THE short point for decision in. this case is whether the notice issued by the appellant on 18/2/1961. under section 67 (1) of the Punjab Municipal. Act, 1911, to be hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act, is in accordance with law. FOR the assessment year 1957-58, it is admitted, the annual letting value of the building, with which we are concerned in this case, was fixed at Rs. 1,650. For the assessment year 1958-59, the appellant revised that value and fixed the same at Rs. 7,200. The learned Additional District Magistrate has rejected the appeal of the respondent and upheld the resolution of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has held that as the notice issued under section 67 (1) of the Act was not in accordance with law, the enhancement made cannot be sustained. SECTION 67 (1) of the Act prescribes:- "67. (1) The Committee may at any time amend the list by inserting the name of any person whose name ought to have been or ought to be inserted or by inserting any property which ought to have been or ought to be inserted, or by altering the assessment on any property which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or mistake whether on the part of the committee or of the assessee, or in the case of a tax payable by the occupier by a change in the tenancy, after giving notice to any person affected by the amendment, of a time, not less than one month from the date of service, at which the amendment is to be made. " ( 2 ) IT may be noted that the power to alter the assessment-he it a question of reduction or enhancement-is entirely that of the Municipal Committee. In other words, the Municipal Committee is constituted as the judge in its own cause. But before exercising that power, the assessee should be given due notice of the proposal to alter the assessment and further, the alteration can be effected only for the reason that the property in question had been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, accident or mistake, whether on the part of the Committee or of the assessee. Hence it follows that Municipal Committee should inform the person to be affected by the alteration its reason for proposing the alteration of the assessment so that he may have an opportunity to satisfy the Municipal Committee that those reasons are non-existent or insufficient to make the suggested alteration or the suggested alteration is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Municipal Committee must intimate to the assessee what mistake had been committed, if there was any mistake, or what fraud had been committed, if there was any that the assesses may be able to meet the case of the Municipal Committee. Even if section 67 (1) is read by itself, it would be clear that the Legislature wanted the Municipal Committee to inform the assessee its reason for altering the assessment, so as to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity to meet the case of the Municipal Committee. Such an interpretation would accord with the principle of natural justice. If two reasonable interpretation, which accords the principles of natural justice, would commend itself to Courts. It may be further noted that here we are considering a provision relating to taxation. Such a provision has got to be strictly construed. To all these we must add that we are called upon to construe a provision of law whereunder a party is constituted as judge in its own cause. For these reasons. we agree with the learned Single Judge that in the notice issued under section 67 (1) it was bound to inform the petitioner its reason or reasons for the suggested alteration of the assessment. That is a condition precedent for a valid notice. In this connection. For these reasons. we agree with the learned Single Judge that in the notice issued under section 67 (1) it was bound to inform the petitioner its reason or reasons for the suggested alteration of the assessment. That is a condition precedent for a valid notice. In this connection. reference may be usefully made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the Cholisgaon Borough Municipality v. Mul- tanchand Fulchand Sancheti (A. I. R. 1956 Bombay 675), (1) and the- decision of the Punjab High Court in Kaviraj Khazan Chand v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (1960 P. L. R. 97 (2 ). NOW we have to see whether the notice given by the appellant meets the requirements of the law as enunciated above. That notice reads thus ( 3 )