JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by Fourth additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1982, has preferred this revision before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2. ) PETITIONERS Radhabai and Savilridevi are having a house bearing municipal House No. 768/1, in Ward No. 40 of Gwalior city within the municipal limits of Municipality Gwalior, i. e. Nagar Palika Nigam. Annual letting value of this house for the purpose of assessment of tax for the year 1975-76 was assessed at Rs. 14,796. 00 and the petitioners paid tax to the Municipal Corporation on this annual letting value. The Property Tax Officer of the non-applicant issued a notice to the petitioners under section 146 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1-2-1977, assessing the annual letting value of the said house at Rs. 28,836. 00 and imposed a tax of Rs. 5767. 20 p. , as house tax for the year 1976-77. ( 3. ) THE petitioners objected to this notice and submitted objections in writing in accordance with the provisions of section 147 (1) of the Act. In those objections they took the stand that the proposed assessment was illegal and arbitrary. Objections filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Property Tax officer of the respondent. The petitioners, thereupon, preferred appeal against that order before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation under section 403 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section I49 of the Act before the District Court, Gwalior and also moved an application during the pendency therein for the stay of the recovery of the house-tax for the year 1976-77 till the decision of the appeal. ( 4. ) THE learned District Judge dismissed that application on the ground that no irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the petitioners, if the stayis not granted. Aggrieved by this short order, the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 5. ) SHRI N. K. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by refusing the prayer for stay. Aggrieved by this short order, the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 5. ) SHRI N. K. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by refusing the prayer for stay. According to Shri Modi, even if the stay of the tax for the year 1976-77 was refused by the District Judge, he should have ordered that the amount of tax levied on the annual letting value of the year 1975-76 should have been ordered to be deposited. Shri B. R. Khedkar, learned counsel for the Corporation, initially tried to support the impugned order on the ground that the tax, if paid, for the year 1976-77, could be refunded, if the judgment of the District Judge goes in favour of the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of section 159, of the Act. ( 6. ) SHORT point to be considered is that if the appellate authority refuses the stay, what amount was required, according to law to be deposited by the petitioners ? ( 7. ) THE scheme of the Act is well enumerated in sections 147, 148, 149, 158 and 159 of the Act. According to Section 147, after the receipt of the notice, petitioner has to file objection with regard to the valuation of the property proposed to be made by the Corporation, rejects the objections, the assessee has got a right of appeal in the Court of District Judge, in accordance with the provisions of section 149, of the Act. To decide the present question the provision of Section 158, of the Act is very clear and it reads thus; "158. Payment of property tax how affected by objections to valuation.- When an objection to a valuation has been made under section 147 the property tax shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be paid on the previous valuation. " (Emphasis supplied)Thus, where the matter is pending before the Property Tax Officer or the commissioner or the District Judge, the provisions of section 158 of the Act are clearly applicable for all the three authorities. " (Emphasis supplied)Thus, where the matter is pending before the Property Tax Officer or the commissioner or the District Judge, the provisions of section 158 of the Act are clearly applicable for all the three authorities. The principle given in section 158 of the Act envisages that till the final adjudication of the valuation, if the authority insists upon the assessee for the payment of the amount of the tax, it should be in accordance with the last years assessment. ( 8. ) THUS, it is clear that the District Judge was wrong in not giving relief to the petitioner. The District Judge ought to have ordered that the petitioners till the final determination of the objection, should deposit the property tax, instead of depositing on the valuation, i. e. on the annual letting value proposed for the year 1976-77 amounting to Rs. 28,836,00, on the annual letting value fixed for the year 1975-76 i. e. Rs. 14,796. 00. ( 9. ) THUS, the upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order is set aside and this revision is allowed. The matter is remanded to the District judge Gwalior, for passing an appropriate order on the stay application in accordance with the observations made above/however, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.