JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - The Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Assessment order dated 31.12.1998 passed by Municipal Council, Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur, respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P-14 and order dated 11.6.1999 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-18 and the tax bill dated 15.1.1999, issued by respondent No. 1, vide Annexure P-15. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 assessed the annual rental value of the godown for the year 1983-84 at the rate of Rs. 45,400/- per annum and imposed house tax to the tune of Rs. 6,129/- after giving admissible rebate of 10%. In the year 1986 respondent No. 1 issued a notice under Sections 65/68 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for assessment of the property Godowns No. 1858 @ Rs. 72,600/- for the year 1987-88. The petitioner contested the notice on the ground that the total constructed capacity of the godowns was 4420 MTS floor area and the annual rental value comes to Rs. 40,980/- @ Rs. 0.10 P per bag per month. After deducting 10% depreciation net annual rental value comes to Rs. 36,882/- on which house tax is calculated as Rs. 5532.80. On 14.5.1987 respondent No. 1 issued a bill for the recovery of the house tax amounting to Rs. 9,450/- for the year 1987-88 on the annual rental value of Rs. 70,000/- per year and on 5.5.1992 respondent No. 1 issued notice under Sections 65/67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for increase in the annual rental value @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per year for the year 1992-93. On 16.6.1992 the petitioner filed objections to the effect that there was no increase in any constructed capacity and that annual rental value of the property has to be worked out in accordance with Section 8(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act. It is the grouse of the petitioner that without hearing, the assessment order was passed by respondent No. 1 and the annual rental value was assessed at Rs. 1,20,000/- on 26.6.1992. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 26.6.1992 which was dismissed as time barred on 27.7.1994. It is the grouse of the petitioner that without hearing, the assessment order was passed by respondent No. 1 and the annual rental value was assessed at Rs. 1,20,000/- on 26.6.1992. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 26.6.1992 which was dismissed as time barred on 27.7.1994. On 10.7.1996 the Sub Divisional Officer of the Corporation issued a certificate that constructed capacity of the godown is 7480 MTS. On 8.9.1996 the High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority to decide the case on merits. On 4.8.1997 the Municipal Committee fixed annual rental value @ Rs. 1,20,000.- for the year 1992-93. The petitioner filed an appeal on 17.8.1998 and the case was remanded on 11.6.1999. The Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for the year 1998-99 vide impugned order Annexure P-18. With these allegations the petitioner Corporation has challenged the orders Annexure P- 14, P-15 and P-18. 3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed on their behalf. The stand of the respondents is that the capacity of the godown is 9900 MTS. The godown in question has been hired from the petitioner corporation by the Food Corporation of India and the capacity of the godown as kept reserved for the Food Corporation of India is 8388 MTS. Hence by any stretch of imagination it cannot be construed that the capacity of the godown is 7480 MTS as alleged by the petitioner. In addition to the space let out to the Food Corporation of India in the godown in question, the space has been let out by the petitioner corporation to other agencies such as Shellers etc. As per letter Annexure R-1/1 dated 26.9.1995 issued by the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lehragaga rent per month is @ 43 paise per square foot and the reserved area is 8388 MT. It is the stand of the respondent that while making the annual assessment of the rent of the godown, rate at the rate of 20 paise per bag has been taken into consideration and in this manner rental comes to Rs. 2,37,600/- per year after giving depreciation @ 10%. Justifying the action on behalf of the respondents, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. 2,37,600/- per year after giving depreciation @ 10%. Justifying the action on behalf of the respondents, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance we have gone through the records of the case. 5. Two points arise for our consideration. The first is, what is the capacity of the godown of the petitioner, whether it is 7480 MTS as alleged by the petitioner or 9900 MTS as stated by the respondent. There is no prima facie evidence led by the petitioner to convince that capacity of the godown is 7480 MTS. On the contrary, our attention has been invited to Annexure R- 1/1, wherein it is specifically mentioned that capacity of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, as revised upto December 1995, is 8388 MT and rent is being paid according to the stock position. It is also the stand of the respondents that petitioner is also letting out space to other agencies such as Shellers etc. Therefore, we hold and decide that capacity of the godown is 9900 MT. 6. The second point for consideration is whether the house tax is leviable on the market rent or it is leviable on the rent being collected by the petitioner from different agencies including Food Corporation of India. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that earlier assessment was on the lower side and there are no basis made out for the respondent authority to increase the assessment. Learned counsel submitted that the assessment should be made as per the rent of the similar godown situated in the similar situations. We are not in a position to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner because the provisions of law have been amended in the year 1994 authorising the Committee to assess the house tax on the actual rent recovered by the land owner. In this case the petitioners are collecting rent @ 43 paise per bag but the Committee has assessed that tax @ 20 paise per bag. In this case the petitioners are collecting rent @ 43 paise per bag but the Committee has assessed that tax @ 20 paise per bag. We have gone through the impugned order Annexure P-18 dated 11.6.1999, especially paras 4 and 5 of the said order, which are quoted below :- "In his reply, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the property is a godown which has the capacity of 9900 MT and this godown is kept reserved for FCI Lehragaga for 8388 MT. Besides this, the appellant is keeping in it other material on different rates. Learned counsel while further arguing contended that the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab Chandigarh has fixed a rent at the rate of 20 paise per bag monthly vide his letter No. A.S-2 (Godown pleth) 95/4576 issued on 21/28/3.1995. As per the capacity of 99000 bags the annual rent of the godown is calculated Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Committee vide its order dated 31.12.1998 has fixed the remaining amount as annual rent from the amount 2,87,600/- instead of Rs. 6,00,000/- after deducting the 10% depreciation charges vide its notice, which is as per law. The Municipal Council has already assessed the calculated amount which is as per the capacity of godown instead of covered area value of the land under property. In the end the learned counsel has requested to dismiss the appeal. 6A. After hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel and the perusal of the record from which it was found that after fixing the annual rent value under section 3(B)(C) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 by the Municipal Council, Lehragaga of the property under appeal has issued a notice dated 23.11.1998. But the assessment which has been finally made by the committee has been passed keeping in mind the capacity of the godown and the rent fixed by the Punjab Government. 7. On going through the above paras of the order passed by the appellate authority, we do not see any illegality in the same. We are of the opinion that the present writ is totally devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 7. On going through the above paras of the order passed by the appellate authority, we do not see any illegality in the same. We are of the opinion that the present writ is totally devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It may also be mentioned here that vide order dated 9.8.2000 passed by this Bench, it was made clear that if the petition is dismissed, the petitioner Corporation shall have to deposit the enhanced tax with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it became due. These directions shall remain operative in this judgment also. Order dasti. Petition dismissed.