Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionagainst the order of Sub Judge, Delhi dated 5/11/1993 whereby the suitof the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdictionto entertain the same. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:- ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners of property No. 35, Babar Road, New Delhi. According to the petitioners, the property was being assessed for the purpose ofhouse tax and they were paying tax at the rate of Rs. 8104. 00 per annum from theyear 1981 to Assessment year 1989-1990. On 23/02/1990 the petitionersreceived a notice from Assistant Collector, Palika Kendra, NDMC calling upontheir tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 24,946. 00 as arrears of house tax upto the periodending 31/03/1990. It is claimed that on receipt of the notice, the petitionersrequested the Secretary, NDMC to furnish the details of the arrears, but theyfailed to receive any response from it. Thereupon the petitioners filed thepresent suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi. Thesummons in the suit were issued to the respondents. New Delhi Municipalcommittee and the Collector. Pursuant thereto NDMC, first respondent, filedits written statement. In the written statement, it was stated, inter alia, that thepetitioners were assessed to house tax @ Rs. 8100. 00 upto the year 1987-88. Subsequently, the tax was raised from Rs. 8100. 00 to Rs. 23,652. 00. The details of thedemands and the tax paid as given in the written statement are as under: ( 2 ) IN the written statement a preliminary objection was also raised that thesuit was barred under Section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, (for short the Act ). Therefore, the Trial Court raised the following preliminary issue:- "whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?" ( 3 ) ON 5/11/1993. the Trial Court decided the preliminary issue andheld that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is this order of the Trialcourt against which the petitioners have come up in the present petition underarticle 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. the Trial Court decided the preliminary issue andheld that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is this order of the Trialcourt against which the petitioners have come up in the present petition underarticle 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for thepetitioners submit that the Trial Court wrongly decided the issue inasmuch as thepetitioners had not comp up against any demand raised by the respondents butthey had merely received a notice calling upon them to deposit the arrears andtherefore, they could not have taken recourse to the remedies provided underthe Act. ( 5 ) I have considered the submission of learned Counsel and I find that thesame are devoid of any force. Learned Counsel for the petitioners was specificallyasked to reconcile the payments which are alleged to have been made by hisclients with the details given in the written statement. Learned Counsel producedthe receipts. All the receipts were tallied with the details given in the writtenstatement and it was found that credit had been given by the respondents in respectof the amounts which had. been shown to have been deposited by the petitionerswith the respondent as per the receipts. Therefore, the case of the petitionersthat they had made the entire payment on account of levy of property tax is notcorrect. The demands as detailed in the written statement were not complied withnor any proceedings were taken under the Act to challenge the property tax assessment. Punjab Municipal Act in; so far property tax matters are concerned is acomplete Code and detailed, procedure is given in regard to the assessment of theproperty tax and the manner in which the assessment could be challenged. Insobha Singh and Songs (P) Ltd. V,. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 34 (1988)DLT 91, this Court after review of Several judgments of the. Supreme Court cameto the conclusion that the challenge to. the demand of property tax can only bemade in accordance with the provisions of ,the Act and filing of a Civil Suit willnot be a proper remedy for challenging the demand. The Supreme Court in ccobserved as follows: 23. Supreme Court cameto the conclusion that the challenge to. the demand of property tax can only bemade in accordance with the provisions of ,the Act and filing of a Civil Suit willnot be a proper remedy for challenging the demand. The Supreme Court in ccobserved as follows: 23. WITH the increase in the number of taxing statutes; welfare legislationsand enactments to protect a class of citizens, atrend can benoticed that mostof such legislations confer decision making powers on various authoritiesand they seek to limit or exclude Court s power to review those decisions. The result is that the power of the Court under Section 9 of the Code is beingdenuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of liabilitiescreated or rights conferred. This Court in the judgments referred to above hasupheld the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Court one examination of twoquestions - (1) Whether the right or liability in respect whereof grievance hasbeen made, had been created under an enactment and it did not relate toa pre-existing common law right? (2) Whether the machinery providedfor redressal of the grievance in respect of infringement of such right orimposition of a liability under such enactment, was adequate andcomplete". The ouster of this jurisdiction of the Court was upheld on thefinding that the rights or liabilities in question had been created by the Actin question and remedy provided therein was adequate. "having regard to the above discussion, it this petition is dismissed.