Honble JAIN, J. — By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned assessment orders and demand notices dt. 6.12.1985, Annexures 2,3,4 & 5. It has been prayed that the order dt. 21.4.1988 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Rajasthan, Jaipur, may kindly be quashed. The petitioner has further prayed that it may be held that the petitioner was fully covered by the Notification dt. 3.3.1982(Anx.l) and was entitled to exemption from payment of Entertainment Tax. (2). Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he took on lease one Nohra from one Mangi Lal Rathi and constructed a Cinema House of ordinary construction after investing substantial amount of money. It is alleged that the non-petitioner no.3 inspected the Cinema House on 30.10.1982. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the petitioner firm and ultimately assessment order dt. 6.12.1982 was passed for the month of October, 1982 a.11.1982 holding that the Cinema House Constructed by the petitioner was not a new one, and a demand of Rs. 591.8.50 for the month of Oct. 1982 and Rs. 3321.40 for the month of November, 1982 was created vide Anxs.2 & 3. Demand notices for recovery of the amount vide Anxs. 4 & 5 for these two months were also issued. The petitioner preferred regular first appeal under F&.27 of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Taxes Rules, 1957 before the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), which was allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled to the 100% exemption and the assessment orders were quashed vide Anx. 6 dt.. 26.5.1986. Thereafter the non-petitioner no.3 filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Rajasthan. The revision petition was allowed by the non-petitioner No.2 on 21.4.1988 (Anx.11) while selling aside the order dt. 26.5.1986 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this writ petition. (3). In this writ petition, which has been filed on 12.7.1988, notice to show cause was issued on 14.7.1988 and recovery in pursuance of the demand notices was stayed on furnishing solvent security. (4). In pursuance to the notice, the non-petitioners filed reply stating that the pelitioner is not entitled for exemption of entertainment lax on the basis of Notification No.F4(19)F.D. (Jr. IV/82 dl. 3.3.1982 issued u/s. 7(2) of the Rajasthan Entertainments & Adverlisements Tax Act, 1952. (4). In pursuance to the notice, the non-petitioners filed reply stating that the pelitioner is not entitled for exemption of entertainment lax on the basis of Notification No.F4(19)F.D. (Jr. IV/82 dl. 3.3.1982 issued u/s. 7(2) of the Rajasthan Entertainments & Adverlisements Tax Act, 1952. It has been stated that using a leased or rented properly after necessary alteration & repairs as a cinema building cannot be called as a "Newly constructed cinema". It has been staled that the respondent no.3 after inspecting the disputed premises on 30.10.1982 has come to the conclusion that the pelitioner has not constructed the new cinema and thereafter passed assessment order and created demand. It has been further stated that the respondent no.2 has rightly set aside the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appcals) and the order challenged by the petitioner is neither without jurisdiction nor the same infringes any fundamental right of the pelitioner, so as to call for any interference in this writ petition. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders passed by the authorities below. (5). The short controversy involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to gel the benefit of the Notification dt. 3.3.1982, which runs as under: — "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Rajasthan Entertainments and Adverlisemenls Tax Act, 1957 (Rajasthan Act 24 of 1957) the Stale Government hereby remits the entertainment tax including the additional entertainments tax chargeable under the said Act, as mentioned below for the new cinemas constructed in the Municipal towns where no cinema exists, after the issue of this notification. S.No. Year Rate of Remission 1. First 100% 2. Second 50% 3. Third 25 4. Fourth Nil This concession shall be available to those new cinemas which arc constructed on or before 31.03.1987." (6). A bare perusal of the aforesaid notification makes it clear that the concession shall be available to the new cinemas constructed on or before 31.03.1987. Though the petitioners case pertains to the period prior to 31.3.1982 but in the instant case it is admitted case of the petitioner that he took a Nohra on rent from one Mangilal Rathi and after making necessary alteration started exhibiting films from 1.10.1982. Though the petitioners case pertains to the period prior to 31.3.1982 but in the instant case it is admitted case of the petitioner that he took a Nohra on rent from one Mangilal Rathi and after making necessary alteration started exhibiting films from 1.10.1982. The respondent no.3 has made inspection on 3.10.1982 and thereafter passed assessment orders and demand notices after considering the evidence holding that the petitioner is not entitled for concession. The Additional Commissioner has also opined that no new cinema house has been constructed as the petitioner failed to show that new walls, auditorium project room, roof etc. were constructed newly and or furniture and fixtures were provided. While coming to the conclusion the Additional Commissioner has referred to a decision of this Court rendered in M/s. Naaz Cinema, which clinches the issue as in that decision this Court has specifically held that "If a person has to construct a new building for running a cinema house he is bound to purchase or take on rent some land, it may be an open land or some old structure on it and in such circumstances if the construction like auditorium, four walls, a cabinet when constructed for the first time it would certainly be a case of constructing a new cinema and remission in Entertainment Tax be allowed to such person under the Notification dt. 3.3.1982." (7). Mr. Kothari has contended that according to the notification, the construction of new cinema is not necessary. Mr. Mehta has opposed the submission stating that the notification unequivocally provides that the concession will be available to new cinemas constructed on or before 31sl March, 1987 whereas the petitioner had taken a Nohra on rent and started, which cannot be called as New Cinema. In this connection suffice it to say that the petitioner has not raised this point before the authorities below. That apart in the writ petition also it has not been specifically agitated. In view of this, the contention raised by Mr. Kothari is of no avail particularly when the petitioner has not been able to establish its case that the Cinema House was constructed newly rather there is evidence to the effect that Rs. 2,000/- were spent on the construction of Cinema House which was taken on rent. In view of this, the contention raised by Mr. Kothari is of no avail particularly when the petitioner has not been able to establish its case that the Cinema House was constructed newly rather there is evidence to the effect that Rs. 2,000/- were spent on the construction of Cinema House which was taken on rent. That apart the petitioner Talkies was closed after duration of three months, the period of its temporary licence whereas such exemption claim envisages exemption for a period of three years. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below in the writ jurisdiction particularly when the case of the petitioner is not covered by the notification dt. 3.3.1982, which unequivocally and clearly provides for the concession to the New Cinemas which are constructed on or before 31.03.1987 and further the point involved in this writ petition has already been dealt by this court in M/s. Naaz Cinema. In view of this, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact of becoming member of M/s. Central Cercuit Cine Association as also of the fact that the Chairman, Municipality, Kapasan has issued a certificate in his favour, as they are not relevant for the present purpose. (8). In the result, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The ad-interim order stands discharged. The respondents may proceed according to law.