ORDER 1. The order under challenge was passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras on a civil revision petition filed by the present respondent, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation. 2. The appellant K.G. Arts Centre Pvt. Ltd., owns and operates a cinema theatre complex called "Ragam, Thanam and Pallavi" in Coimbatore city. This theatre complex came into existence on 1-5-1981. The question in the appeal is about the mode of its assessment to property tax. The relevant provision is to be found in Section 122 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981. Sub-section (2) thereof and the second proviso thereto are relevant. They read thus: "122. Method of assessment of property tax.-(1) * * * (2) The annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction, in the case of buildings, of ten per cent, of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and the adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto; and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever; Provided that- (a) in the case of- (i) * * * (ii) any building of a class not ordinarily let the gross annual value of which cannot, in the opinion of the Commissioner, be estimated, the annual value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per centum of the total of the estimated market value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per centum of such cost;" 3. It appears that the Commissioner of the respondent assessed the theatre complex to property tax on the basis of the capital value thereof but, it is an admitted position, he did not set out in his order any reasons for a proceeding upon the basis that the theatre complex belonged to a class of buildings which were not ordinarily let. The assessment made accordingly by the Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before the Taxation Appeals Committee, Coimbatore. The Committee upheld the conclusion of the Commissioner. The assessment made accordingly by the Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before the Taxation Appeals Committee, Coimbatore. The Committee upheld the conclusion of the Commissioner. It acknowledged that the Commissioner had not adverted to the question of the basis for assessment of property tax of the theatre complex in his assessment order; he had not given reasons for adopting the capital value instead of the annual rental value. The Committee, however, made up for the lacunae by giving three reasons in this behalf. According to the Committee, being a newly constructed one, the theatre complex was not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, its annual rental value could not be adopted for assessing the property tax. In the second place, according to the Committee, the theatre complex "with its building, accessories and fittings cannot possibly be leased out to a single individual because it would involve huge expenditure and investment of money attendant with all risks for exhibiting films in the three theatres in the complex. In other words, there is remote possibility of leasing out this entire cinema complex to a single individual or an association of persons. So the annual rental value cannot afford us the basis for assessing this property for tax purposes". In the third place, according to the Committee, if at all there was a lease of the theatre complex, it would not be of the building alone but also of the furniture, fittings, generators and projectors therein. The basis of the annual rental value could not, in the Committees view, "be a safe basis because it is very difficult to find out the annual rental value for building alone, especially in respect of a cinema theatre. In other words, this cinema theatre complex, with all its accessories cannot be ordinarily let out". 4. The order of the Committee was challenged in an appeal filed before the District Judge, Coimbatore. The District Judge reversed the finding of the Committee. He said that the primary and principal basis for assessment under Section 122(2) was the rental value; it was only in cases where a building belonged to a class of buildings not ordinarily let out that an alternative method was prescribed. The District Judge reversed the finding of the Committee. He said that the primary and principal basis for assessment under Section 122(2) was the rental value; it was only in cases where a building belonged to a class of buildings not ordinarily let out that an alternative method was prescribed. It was not open to the taxing authority to adopt one or the other of the two methods of valuation; the taxing authority had to first determine whether the building in question belonged to a class of buildings not ordinarily let out "like temple, memorial buildings, etc." The District Judge said: "It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that theatre buildings are of a class that are not ordinarily let out. As a matter of fact, theatres are let out or leased and as such the rental income therefore is easily and readily ascertainable." The District Judge referred to a tabular statement which had been placed before him on behalf of the appellant, which was not denied by the taxing a authorities, which showed that all cinema theatres in Coimbatore had not been taxed on the basis of capital value. 5. The taxing authorities carried the order of the District Judge in revision to the High Court at Madras, whereon the order under challenge was delivered. The learned Single Judge referred to the Full Bench judgment of his High Court in the case of Singanallur Municipality v. Vasantha Mills Ltd.1 in which it had been laid down that the question whether a building belonged to a class not ordinarily let out had to be decided with reference to the purpose for which it was put up and the purpose for which it was used and not whether it was capable of being let or not. In his view, the Full Bench had rightly held that the test should be more on whether the building belonged to a class not ordinarily let and not whether it was capable of being let. The Full Bench decision dealt with the case of a mill. In his view, the Full Bench had rightly held that the test should be more on whether the building belonged to a class not ordinarily let and not whether it was capable of being let. The Full Bench decision dealt with the case of a mill. The learned Judge said: "On a matter of principle I could not see any or much difference between the assessment of a mill premises or a cinema theatre premises to property tax - nor was there any such basic difference in the two categories or these classes of buildings been pointed out with any particular reference to the need, desirability or necessity to treat them differently and adopt different methods of assessment." The revision petition was, therefore, allowed and the order of the Committee was restored so that "the proceedings shall stand remitted to the Commissioner for considering afresh the merits of the contentions pertaining to the quantum of assessment which alone is left open to be agitated and decided by the Commissioner ... ". 6. By reason of the fact that there was no stay granted by this Court of the order on the revision petition, the Commissioner readjudicated the quantum of assessment and the recovery thereof has been stayed by reason of the deposit of Rs 18,52,708, being fifty per cent of the amount demanded from the appellant with the Commissioner. 7. The ordinary method of assessment of property tax under Section 122 of the Act is on the basis of the annual rental value thereof. It is only when, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the building being assessed belongs to a class of buildings which are not ordinarily let that the annual value thereof may be determined on the basis of the capital value thereof. It is, therefore, for the Commissioner to come to the opinion that the building in relation to which he is assessing property tax belongs to a class of buildings which is not ordinarily let; only then can he adopt the capital valuation method. In coming to such an opinion, necessarily, the Commissioner must examine all relevant material and he must set out in his order, however briefly, why he has reached that opinion. In coming to such an opinion, necessarily, the Commissioner must examine all relevant material and he must set out in his order, however briefly, why he has reached that opinion. It is an admitted position that in the case before us the Commissioner adopted the capital valuation method without so much as stating in his order that he was of the opinion that he could not adopt the method of the annual rental value because the theatre complex belonged to a a class of buildings which was not ordinarily let. In our view, therefore, on that count alone, the order of the Commissioner and all proceedings subsequent thereto must stand set aside. 8. Even the reasoning of the Committee cannot be said to be satisfactory. It is based on ipse dixit. There was before it no material upon which it could conclude, one way or the other, that a theatre or a theatre complex was not ordinarily let out. 9. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was based on the decision of the Full Bench of that Court. The learned Judge appears not to have appreciated that there can be a vast difference between a mill and a cinema theatre; there was no basis for making no distinction between the two and assuming that as a mill was not ordinarily let out so also a cinema theatre was not ordinarily let out. 10. We think, in the circumstances, that the assessment order made by the Commissioner and all orders in the proceedings subsequent thereto must be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner to decide, in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 122, whether or not the theatre complex belongs to a class of buildings which are not ordinarily let out and then proceed to make an assessment accordingly. Both the appellant and the respondent shall be entitled to place before the Commissioner all relevant material in this behalf. The Commissioner shall consider such material and the order that he makes shall reflect his opinion based thereon. 11. The appeal is allowed. The matter shall stand remitted to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, to act in the manner aforestated. Both the appellant and the respondent shall be entitled to place before the Commissioner all relevant material in this behalf. The Commissioner shall consider such material and the order that he makes shall reflect his opinion based thereon. 11. The appeal is allowed. The matter shall stand remitted to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, to act in the manner aforestated. In the event that he does not make an order of assessment within a period of eight weeks from today, the amount of Rs 18,52,708 deposited by the appellant with him as aforestated shall be forthwith refunded. If, on the other hand, the order is passed, the amount, to the extent necessary, shall be set off against the demand. 12. The respondent shall pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal.