Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The writ petitioner challenges the orders enhancing the assessment passed by the Commissioner of Madras, and the Chairman. Taxation Appeals Tribunal, and also the order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she owned a building, in respect of which there was an old assessment made somewhere in the year 1982. It seems that the fresh assessment was made and initially, the Commissioner fixed the rental value at Rs. 55, 250/- and the annual value at Rs. 6, 03, 330/-. An appeal came to be filed against this order before the Chairman, Taxation Appeals Committee. The Taxation Appeals Tribunal gave some relief inasmuch as it brought down the rental value to Rupees 53, 250/- and the annual value was reduced to Rs. 5, 81, 490/-. The Tribunal observed that the building, in which the total build-up area was 32, 400 sq. ft., has a large potential and the earlier assessment of the letting value, which was at Rs. 17, 800/-, was meagre. Therefore, on the basis of the annual letting value, the Taxation Tribunal almost confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner, but, gave some relief, taking into consideration that the building was 18 years old and further that the building was used for lodging purpose. The petitioner was not satisfied by this and hence filed an appeal under Rule 15 of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned principal District Judge has confirmed the order. It is against these orders, the present writ petition is sought to be filed. 3. The only point which was argued before me was that the original notice for enhancement was given under Schedule IV, Part I-A, Rule 3-A of the Act. 4. The learned counsel was prompt to point out that Rule 3-A was not on the statute book because on the date when the notice was issued in the year 1992, i.e. on 9-9-1992, that Rule was already deleted by way of amendment. The learned counsel therefore says that the original notice itself is bad in law. void and non est. I do not, at all, agree. Besides these provisions, the provisions of Sec. 137-B of the Act are also mentioned in the said notice. The learned counsel therefore says that the original notice itself is bad in law. void and non est. I do not, at all, agree. Besides these provisions, the provisions of Sec. 137-B of the Act are also mentioned in the said notice. Sec. 137-B is the general power of enhancement of the assessment where the Commissioner is of the opinion that the assessment is either escaped or inadequate. Once that Section is mentioned in the notice, the mere mention of a provision of Rule 3-A cannot have the effect of invalidating the notice. What is to be seen is whether an opportunity is properly given to the concerned petitioner before the exercise of enhancement of assessment is taken up by the Corporation. It is obvious that the Corporation had given this notice in the old form. But that will not by itself invalidate the whole proceedings. This is apart from the fact that this question is being raised for the first time before me. It was not raised either before the Tribunal or before the appellate authority, the principal District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Therefore that objection by itself does not support the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then tried to argue that the assessment was too high as compared to the previous assessment and it is almost three times. It cannot be forgotten that the previous assessment pertained to a period of early eighties, whereas 18 long years have elapsed since then. The authorities below have considered every possible argument and considering the location of the building, its utility, and the quality of construction, have come to a correct finding regarding the enhancement. 6. I do not find any illegality in the order passed. The orders of the lower authorities are confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently WMPs. 29358 and 29359/2000 are dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner then says, that it will be onerous to pay all the arrears at one stroke. It is for her to make suitable representation to the Corporation in that behalf and that is the only solution which can be said in respect of that argument. Petition dismissed.