( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Corporation of the City of Bangalore (here in after referred to as the Corporation ). It has challenged the order made by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, in Case mun 165 of 1970. The said order has been made on 29-11-1971. ( 2 ) PROCEEDINGS before the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore, were initiated by the Housing Board, Bangalore, expressly pursuant to Rule 22a of the Taxation Rules in Sch. III of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The Housing Board was aggrieved by the revision of assessment made by the Corporation Authorities in respect of certain buildings put up by it in Jeevanahalli Extension, within the Bangalore municipal Corporation limits. By that revision, the Corporation had fixed the rental value of each of the buildings at Rs. 300 per mensem for the purpose of municipal assessment leviable on such buildings. This revision, according to the Corporation was based on the actual rentals derived from such buildings. The Authority which dealt with the matter of enhancement of assessment was the Administrator of the Corporation exercising the powers of the Taxation Appeals Committee. The Divisional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the estimate of the rental value of the premises in question at Rs. 300 per mensem was excessive and reduced the same to rs. 150 per mensem. Before the Divisional Commissioner, the Corporation had been placed ex parte and therefore it had no opportunity to object to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Divisional Commissioner. It is against this order that the Corporation has approached this Court. ( 3 ) IT is plain from the language of Rule 22a of the Taxation Rules pursuant to which the Divisional Commissioner had exercised his jurisdiction in making the order impugned herein, that such power is exercisable only when any order or action of the Corporation was prejudicial to the Revenue of the Corporation and not prejudicial to an assessee. ( 3 ) IT is plain from the language of Rule 22a of the Taxation Rules pursuant to which the Divisional Commissioner had exercised his jurisdiction in making the order impugned herein, that such power is exercisable only when any order or action of the Corporation was prejudicial to the Revenue of the Corporation and not prejudicial to an assessee. That this is so is plain from the language of the said Rule which reads thus :" 22a (1) The Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, may, suo motu or otherwise call for and examine the record of any proceeding relating to assessment of any tax under the Act and these rules by the Commissioner or the Taxation Appeals Committee, and if he considers that any order or decision there in is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests or the revenues of the Corporation, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify including an order enhancing the assessment of any tax. " (Emphasis supplied ). ( 4 ) THE observation made by me earlier is clearly supported by the portion of the above rule under-scored (italics ). When the Corporation fixes the rent at Rs. 300 per mensem in respect of any taxable premises, it is capable of interference by the Divisional Commissioner pursuant to the above Rule only when it is felt by him that such assessment by the Corporation was low and therefore prejudicial to the interests or revenues of the Corporation. But what the Divisional Commissioner has done is, he has found that it is prejudicial to the interests of the assessee. It is in this view that the Divisional Commissioner has interfered with the assessment made by the Corporation, and prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation, by reducing the rental value as aforesaid. Such an exercise of the power is clearly outside the purview of the above Rule. The order, therefore is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The order of the Divisional commissioner impugned herein is therefore quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .