JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE order in this revision shall also govern the disposal of Civil revisions Nos. 179 of 1985 (Municipal Corporation, Indore vs. Rakesh), 180/85 (Municipal Corporation vs. Rajendra Kumar), 226/85 (Municipal Corporation vs. Anil Agrawal) and 227/85 (Municipal Corporation, Indore vs. Dinesh ). ( 2. ) ALL these revisions are filed by the Municipal Corporation, Indore, against a common order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1983 by the 7th Addl. Judge to the court of the District Judge, Indore, dated 22-2-1985. The other revisions arise out of the common but separate orders passed in different appeals filed by the respective assessees. In all these revisions, a common question of law is involved and as such they are disposed of by one order. ( 3. ) THE brief facts are that in civil revision No. 184 of 1985, the non-applicant shailendra Kumar Agrawal is the owner of house No. 11/1, Prince Yeshwant Road, indore. This building was let out to Central Government for use as Post Office. The learned counsel for the assessee informs that an eviction suit was filed against the government in which a decree was passed in favour of the assessee landlord. That decree was maintained upto the stage of second appeal whereafter it was put to execution. During the pendency of execution proceedings, a portion of the house in occupation of the post office, was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short the Act ). Originally the rent of the building was charged at Rs. 700/- p. m. After requisition under the Act, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2950/- per month, was determined under Section 8 of the Act as payable by the Central Government to the assessee. In view of the increase in the amount payable by the Central Government to the assessee landlord, the corporation reassessed the portion in occupation of the Post Office and demanded tax at the increased rate, determined in proportion to the increase in the payment of compensation. Against this order, appeal was filed by the assessee in the district court, which by the impugned order, was set aside and the original rental value of the portion, determined at the rate of Rs. 700/- p. m. , was maintained. In view of the said legal position, other appeals were also disposed of. Against this order, appeal was filed by the assessee in the district court, which by the impugned order, was set aside and the original rental value of the portion, determined at the rate of Rs. 700/- p. m. , was maintained. In view of the said legal position, other appeals were also disposed of. Aggrieved by all those separate but common orders, the Municipal Corporation has filed these revisions. ( 4. ) SECTION 138 (b) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the corporation Act) provides that for the purpose of assessing land or building to property tax, the annual value of any building shall be the gross annual rent at which such building may be let for use or enjoyment therewith, less the allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building. Explanation II thereunder provides that the term "gross annual rent" shall not include any tax payable by the owner in respect of which the owner and tenant have agreed that it shall be paid by tenant. Thus, for assessment of property tax of any land or building, the Corporation has to determine the annual value. The annual value is the gross annual rent at which the building or land may be let, less ten per cent for repairs. ( 5. ) THE contention on behalf of the Corporation is that the gross annual rent of the building in question is, twelve times the monthly compensation being paid by the central Government for use and enjoyment of the building to the assessee landlord less ten per cent thereof. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the compensation determined under Section 8 of the Act as payable by the Central Government to the owner of the building is rent contemplated by Section 138 of the Corporation Act. ( 6. ) AS seen above, what is essential under section 138 of the Corporation Act, is to find out the rent at which the building may be let for use or enjoyment in other words the sum payable by the assessee to the lessor in consideration of the lease of the building. While examining the meaning of the word rent in section 80 of the corporation Act, this court in S. Govind Singh vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur 1965 M. P. LJ. While examining the meaning of the word rent in section 80 of the corporation Act, this court in S. Govind Singh vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur 1965 M. P. LJ. Note 141, held that rent means the premium payable on lease. lease, as defined in section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a voluntary transfer of a right to enjoy the property in consideration of rent. Therefore, the transfers by operation of law, or in consequence of acquisition or requisition under some statute cannot be called lease since the element of mutual assent is absent. Section 2 (d) of the transfer of Property Act, provides that the Transfer of Property Act, but for certain exceptions does not apply to transfers by operation of law. Therefore, when the government takes possession of any building under a requisition order, it cannot be termed as lease, so as to create a relationship of landlord and tenant there being no mutuality. In New India Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax A. I. R. 1963 s. C. 1207, it was held that there is no sale, when under the Centrol Legislation, the seller is compelled to sell, the element of mutual assent being wholly absent. ( 7. ) SECTION 83 of the Act of 1952 empowers the competent authority to requisition any immovable property needed for any public purpose. While section 4 of the Act provides for taking possession of the requisitioned property, section 8 provides for payment of compensation to be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out thereunder. The amount of compensation payable for the requisitioning of any property consists of (a) a recurring payment of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property; and (b) such sum or sums, as may be found necessary to compensate the person interested for all or any of the following matters, namely, (i) pecuniary loss due to requisitioning, (ii) expenses on account of vacating the requisitioned premises; (iii)expenses on account of reoccupying the premises upon release from requisition and (iv) damages caused to the property during the period of requisition. From all these, it is clear that the compensation payable by the Government is not merely the rent for use and enjoyment of the building. ( 8. From all these, it is clear that the compensation payable by the Government is not merely the rent for use and enjoyment of the building. ( 8. ) THUS in the present case, there was no transfer of possession of building in consideration of the rent, so as to be construed as lease within the meaning of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. When a premises is requisitioned or acquisitioned, the monthly compensation paid therefor cannot be called rent, as it is not preceded by a grant by the owner to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the Corporation has no right or authority to take the monthly compensation as tent for ascertaining the gross annual rent, and to assess the property tax on that basis. ( 9. ) THE Supreme Court, after examining the provisions of the Municipal corporation Acts of other States, has been consistently laying down that irrespective of rent received by the owner from the tenant, the assessing authority has to arrive at its own figure of standard rent by applying the principles laid down in Corporation of calcutta vs. Smt. Padma Debi and others AIR 1962 S. C. 151, Deven Daulat Rai Kapoor etc. vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another AIR 1980 S. C. 541 and Dr. Balbirsingh and others vs. Mis M. C. D. and others AIR 1985 S. C. 339. In the present case, the agreed rent of the building was Rs. 700/- p. m. The learned appellate court held this to be the standard rent of the building possibly u/s 7 (3) (c) (i) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short called Act) Standrard rent is defined under Section 7 of the Act. It will also be useful to refer to section 5 (2) of the accommodation Control Act, 1961 which lays down that any agreement for the payment of rent in excess of the standard rent, shall be construed as if it were an agreement for the payment of the standard rent only. Therefore my conclusions are that for determination of the gross annual rent under section 138 (2) of the corporation Act, the Assessing Authority shall first determine monthly standard rent and after finding out gross annual rent on that basis, proceed to assess the property tax. ( 10. Therefore my conclusions are that for determination of the gross annual rent under section 138 (2) of the corporation Act, the Assessing Authority shall first determine monthly standard rent and after finding out gross annual rent on that basis, proceed to assess the property tax. ( 10. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the present revision which fails and is accordingly dismissed. The Municipal Corporation shall be free to proceed with the assessment with due advertence to the foregoing observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.