R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners seek to challenge notices, bills and demands for payment of property tax for the period from the year 1974 till 31/03/1980 issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation in respect of the property which according to the petitioners belong to them. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they along with Shambhubhai Patel and Smt. Nilaben Patel purchased a plot of land with superstructure standing thereon for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000. 00 on 15/05/1974 and after demolishing the superstructure constructed a multi-storeyed building namely cisco Chambers. The said property bearing Municipal Census No. RA-5292 is situate in Raopura area in Baroda. According to the petitioners a portion of this building was leased to M/s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai patel and Co. , on 10/12/1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1750. 00 for the ground floor, first floor, and the second floor. The petitioners have contended that by letter received in the office of the Corporation on 15/07/1976 they pointed out that they were the owners of the property and that the property should be transferred to their name in the Municipal records. A sum of Rs. 2,441. 00 which was due as arrears payable to the Corporation by the vendors of the property was paid by the petitioners on 23/04/1976. The property appears to have been inspected for the purpose of assessing taxes on 1/04/1978 according to the petitioners. In November 1979, a bunch of notices and bills were received by the occupiers of the said building vijaya Bank, Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co. , and Cisco Chambers demanding the amounts mentioned in the bills of arrears of taxes. According to the petitioners these bills were received by Mr. Chinwala, the Manager of M/s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co. The petitioners have contended that notwithstanding the intimation given to the Municipal Commissioner to mutate the names of the petitioners as owners of Cisco Chambers, bills were issued to Roshanbibi Fakruddin as if she was the owner of the property purchased by the petitioners. The petitioners once again on 3/02/1980, made an application for muting their names. The Municipal Authorities, however, by letter dated 9/01/1980, called upon the tenant Vijaya Bank to deposit the monthly rent against the outstanding amount with the office of the respondent. Copy of that letter was sent to Roshanbibi and to M/ s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co. The petitioners once again on 3/02/1980, made an application for muting their names. The Municipal Authorities, however, by letter dated 9/01/1980, called upon the tenant Vijaya Bank to deposit the monthly rent against the outstanding amount with the office of the respondent. Copy of that letter was sent to Roshanbibi and to M/ s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co. ( 3 ) AT the hearing of the petition, two contention were raised by the learned Counsel, Mr. A. H. Mehta, appearing for the petitioners. He contended that the assessment made by the respondent was not in consonance with the meaning attributed to the expression "annual letting value" defined in Sec. 2 (1) (a) according to which wherever rent control law prevails the landlord cannot be expected to get any rent in excess of the standard rent. According to Mr. Mehta, whatever the rent the petitioners were actually getting, namely rs. 1,750/- per month from the tenant, M/s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co. , should have formed the basis for determining the annual letting value for the purpose of assessing taxes. The second contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that no special notice as stipulated in Rule 15 of Chapter VIII of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations act, 1949, which incorporates Taxation Rules, was given to the petitioners who are the owners of the property. He submitted that this is why the petitioners could not file a complaint against the valuation. Mr. M. B. Gandhi, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents started his arguments by contending that there was an amendment under Sec. 2 (1) (A) by which clauses (aa) and (aaa) were added to the definition of annual letting value and accordingly where the standard rent was not fixed the property was liable to be assessed on the basis of annual rent which was expected to be realised, but retreated when it was pointed out that the said amendment came into force from 18/01/1984 by Gujarat Act No. 3 of 1984. He therefore proceeded to contend that this Court should not go into the question of valuation which is better left to the appropriate authority under the statute. He argued that there was no need to give any special notice to the petitioners. He therefore proceeded to contend that this Court should not go into the question of valuation which is better left to the appropriate authority under the statute. He argued that there was no need to give any special notice to the petitioners. He submitted that even though the petitioners were the owners of the property, their names were not muted because no joint application was made under rule 1 of the Taxation Rules and Roshanbibi continued in the record of the Corporation as the person primarily liable under Rule 3 of the Taxation rules. He submitted that intimation said to have been sent on 15-7-1976 was not received by the Corporation from the petitioners and therefore no mutation could be made. He further contended that there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioners of preferring an appeal instead of rushing to this Court and since they had not exhausted that remedy they should not be given and relief. ( 4 ) IN Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (reported in AIR 1980 SC 541 ) which was relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Mehta, the Supreme Court while construing the provisions of sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Punjab Municipal Act defining annual value of a building to be the gross annual rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to let from year to year, held that where a building is governed by the provisions of Rent Control Legislation the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to receive anything more than standard rent from a hypothetical tenant and the annual value of the building therefore cannot exceed the standard rent. It was held that even if the standard rent was not fixed, the landlord cannot reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant anything more than the standard rent determinable under the Act and the assessing authority would have to arrive at is own figure of the standard rent by applying the provisions laid down in Rent Control Law for determination of standard rent and then proceed to determine the annual value of building on the basis of such figure of standard rent. This decision was considered in a later case of Dr. Balbir Singh and Ors. v. M. C. D. and Ors. This decision was considered in a later case of Dr. Balbir Singh and Ors. v. M. C. D. and Ors. (reported in air 1985 SC 339 ) in which it was held by the Supreme Court that the standard rent determinable on the principles set out in the Rent Act was the upper limit of the rent which the landlord was expected to receive from a hypothetical tenant, but it may in a given case be less than the standard rent having regard to the various attendant circumstances and considerations such as the building not being in a proper state of repair or situate in a disadvantageous position. A Division Bench of this Court in Modern bobbin Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Billimora Municipality and Anr. , (reported in (1981) 22 GLR 642) in context of the definition of annual letting value in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, held that while fixing the annual letting value, the assessing authority is bound to take into consideration the standard rent of a building where it has been fixed by the Court and where it is not so fixed the assessing authority shall have to determine it on the basis of principles laid down by clause (b) of sub-sec. (10) of Sec. 5 of the Bombay Rent Act. We do not know on what basis the annual letting value was fixed by the authority under the Bombay Provincial Municipal corporations Act while issuing the impugned notices, bills and demands in respect of the property of the petitioners. It is entirely for the commissioner to undertake the exercise under the Taxation Rules for coming to the correct assessment of taxes. It will, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to go into the question of the correct annual letting value of the property. ( 5 ) ON the second aspect of the matter, namely that, special notice ought to have been given to the petitioners who are the owners of the property in view of the provision of Rule 15 of the Taxation Rules, the petitioners appear to be on a surer footing. It will be noticed that owner is defined in Sec. 2 (45) of the Act and means when used with reference to premises, the person who receives the rent of the said premises or who would be entitled to receive the rent thereof if the premises were let. It will be noticed that owner is defined in Sec. 2 (45) of the Act and means when used with reference to premises, the person who receives the rent of the said premises or who would be entitled to receive the rent thereof if the premises were let. The definition includes agents, trustees, receivers, mortgagee-in-possession etc. , as mentioned therein. The persons who are primarily liable for property taxes are indicated in Sec. 139 of the Act. When the title of any person primarily liable for payment of the property tax is transferred, the person whose title is so transferred and the person to whom the same shall be transferred are required to give notice of such transfer in writing to the Commissioner within 3 months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration in view of Rule 1 of the Taxation Rules. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2, no such notice shall be deemed to be validly given unless property taxes due at the date of notice in respect of the premises have been paid. Rule 3 of the taxation Rules inter alia provides that if any person primarily liable for the payment of a property tax whose title to or over such premises is transferred fails to give notice of such transfer to the Commissioner, he shall in addition to any other liability which he may incur through such neglect, continue to be liable for payment of all property taxes until he gives such notice or until the transfer shall have been recorded in Commissioners books. Thus, the whole idea behind this provision appears to be that the person primarily liable cannot escape liability on the ground that title is transferred unless he gives notice along with the transferee or unless the transfer is otherwise recorded in the Commissioners Book. The assessment book has to be maintained as provided by Rule 9 of Taxation Rules and it would contain the assessment particulars in respect of the property including the lease of buildings, rateable value, names of persons primarily liable for payment of taxes, the amount at which the premises are assessed etc. The assessment book has to be maintained as provided by Rule 9 of Taxation Rules and it would contain the assessment particulars in respect of the property including the lease of buildings, rateable value, names of persons primarily liable for payment of taxes, the amount at which the premises are assessed etc. In this context, rule 8 of the Taxation Rules is significant and it inter alia provides that in order to enable him to determine value of any building or land and premises and the person primarily liable for the payment of any property tax leviable in respect thereof, the Commissioner may require the owner or occupier of such building or land or premises or of any portion thereof to furnish him with information or with a return signed by such owner or occupier as to the name and place of abode of the owner or occupier or of both the owner and occupler of such building or land or premises. It is, thus, one of the duties of the Commissioner to ascertain the names of the owners of the premises. This duty is greater when it appears that the property has changed hands and where the person primarily liable for payment of property taxes has transferred his title to someone else. It is in this context that the provision of Rule 15 (2) of the Taxation Rules should be viewed. Under the said provision it is provided that in every case in which any premises have for the first time been entered in the assessmentbook as liable to the payment of property taxes, or in which the rateable value of any premises liable to such payment has been increased, the commissioner shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the issue of public notice under sub-rule (1) give a special written notice to the owner or occupier of the said premises specifying the nature of such entry and informing him that any complaint against the same will be received in his office at any time within 15 days from the service of the special notice. Thus, the nature of public notice under Rule 15 (1), which is a public notice of a day on or before which complaints against the amount of any rateable value entered in the assessment book will be received in the office, is entirely different from the special written notice which is required to be given under Rule 15 (2) to the owner or occupier of the premises specifying the nature of the entry and inviting complaint if any against the same. Therefore, by its very nature, the provision of Rule 15 (2) of the Taxation rules is mandatory and imposes a duty upon the Commissioner to issue such special written notice to the owner or occupier. Rule 16 (1) envisages such complaint against the amount of any rateable value entered in the assessment book or even against the mention of name of any person as primarily liable for the payment of property taxes, besides other complaints of the nature indicated therein. It will, thus, be noticed that, if the owner receives a special written notice he can raise his objection against the mention of name of any person as primarily liable for payment of property tax if there is a wrong entry to that effect. An elaborate procedure for hearing such complaints is provided in Rules 17 and 18. Rule 20 of the Taxation Rules empowers the Commissioner to amend the assessment book during the official year which he may do upon any representation of a person concerned or upon other information. Such amendments include insertion of names of persons who ought to have been in the record. Thus, merely because roshanbibi was shown as the person primarily liable to pay taxes and she did not make an application for effecting change as required by Rule 1 and therefore continued to be liable to pay taxes, it cannot be said that the commissioner was absolved from his duty to issue special notice in writting to the owners of the property as required by Rule 15 (2 ). Admittedly, the petitioners who have purchased the property were not issued any such notice, and in my view, notice to Roshanbibi who was one of the co-owners before the property was transferred to the petitioners and was shown as person primarily liable in the Municipal record, was not a notice to the owner as envisaged under Rule 15 (2 ). Admittedly, the petitioners who have purchased the property were not issued any such notice, and in my view, notice to Roshanbibi who was one of the co-owners before the property was transferred to the petitioners and was shown as person primarily liable in the Municipal record, was not a notice to the owner as envisaged under Rule 15 (2 ). The petitioners were obviously entitled to a special notice having purchased the property and merely because mutation was not done for showing the person primarily responsible to pay taxes, it cannot be said that no special notice was necessary to be issued to the petitioners who admittedly are the owners of the property. In absence of any complaint under Sec. 16 which these owners would have filed had they received such special notice, they could not pursued any alternative remedy of appeal under Sec. 406 of the said Act. The petition will, therefore, have to be allowed to the above limited extent with directions which follow : (a) The petitioners shall make a representation to the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the taxation Rules in respect of the disputed period from 197 4/03/1980, in connection with the property bearing Municipal Census no. RA-5292 in Raopura area of Baroda and in respect of all the notices, bills and demands for the said period which are challenged in this petition, and raise their contentions, if any, for amendment of the assessment book. It will be open to the petitioners to raise objections permissible under the law against the entries made in the assessment book in respect of the said property on the aspects which are covered in this petition. Such representation will be made within 4 weeks from today. The Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation shall consider such representation/complaint/objections that may be filed by the petitioners in respect of the said property and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. (b) The amount of 50% of arrears of taxes which was ordered to be deposited by the petitioner and which was to be withdrawn by the Municipal corporation by order dated 27-6-1980 earlier passed in this petition shall remain with the respondent-Corporation and will be adjusted towards the ultimate liability of the petitioners in respect of the arrears of taxes which may be assessed by the respondent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. .