ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The revision against the order of VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in M.A. No. 40 of 1998. The Petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 19, 11th 'B' Cross, Vyalikaval, Bangalore - 560 003. The building consists of a ground floor, first floor and part of the first floor constructed in the year 1974 and the remaining second floor constructed in the year 1993. Only a portion of the first floor is said to be tenanted. The Corporation tax of the building was assessed at Rs. 655/- per annum from the year 1994. Later on, without notice to the Petitioner, the tax was increased to Rs. 6,556/- per annum. When the revision was filed before the Commissioner, it was reduced to Rs. 6,150/-. An appeal was filed before the Appeal Committee and after giving reduction, it was fixed at Rs. 5,447/- per annum with effect from 1.4.1995. The intimation of the tax assessment in appeal was communicated on 25.3.1998. The appeal was filed before the City Civil Judge and it came to be dismissed, for non-compliance of provisions of Rule 20A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Rules. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed. 2. After hearing the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Counsel for the Corporation, I find that the revision lacks merit. The City Civil Court to entertain any appeal against the assessment order, it is mandatory that under Rule 20A, the arrears of tax has to be deposited, failing which the Court cannot entertain the appeal. The question of considering the merits of the case and scrutiny of the legality of the assessment would arise only when the technical formalities of proper filing are complied. The law on this point is settled in Smt. Kalava M. Guddada Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, 2001 (1) KCCR 228. Despite the sufficient opportunity, the arrears of tax is not deposited. Therefore, the Division Bench ruling of Kerala in M. Madhavan Nair Jayasree Vs. Manjeri Municipality and Anr., AIR 1999 Ker 322 following the earlier rulings of the same Court it was held that notice shall be issued to the appellant before the appeal is rejected as not maintainable either on the ground of non-deposit of tax or on the ground of limitation. Manjeri Municipality and Anr., AIR 1999 Ker 322 following the earlier rulings of the same Court it was held that notice shall be issued to the appellant before the appeal is rejected as not maintainable either on the ground of non-deposit of tax or on the ground of limitation. In the present case, the notices have also been issued to the Corporation, yet there has been no compliance of Rule 20A for deposit of the arrears of tax. Therefore, the revision has to fail. However, before parting with the case, I am compelled to make certain observations on the provisions of law in the Municipal Corporations Act relating to assessment and levy of the building tax. 3. The following are the provisions of Sections 108 and 109 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act: 108. Description and class of property tax.- (1) If the Corporation by a resolution determines that a property tax shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on all lands within the city save those exempted by or under this Act or any other law. (2) The property tax shall be levied, at such percentage, nor being less than twenty per cent and not more than twenty five per cent of the rateable value of buildings and lands as may be fixed by the Corporation: Provided that the percentage so fixed may be different in different areas and for different classes of buildings and lands. 109. Method of assessment of property tax.- (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as appurtenances thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. 109. Method of assessment of property tax.- (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as appurtenances thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. (2) The rateable value of a building or land shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which such building or land may at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction in the case of buildings only of sixteen and two-thirds per cent of such annual rent and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowance for repairs or on any other account whatever: Provided that: (a) in the case of: (i) any Government or railway building; or (ii) any building of a class not ordinarily let, the gross annual rent of which cannot in the opinion of the Commissioner be estimated, the rateable value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent of the total of the estimated market value of the land at the time of assessment and the estimated cost of erecting the building at such time after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per cent of such cost, and (b) machinery and furniture shall be excluded from valuations under this section. After complying with all the requisite formalities, the Corporation is empowered to levy of tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 108 at such percentage not being less than 20 per cent and not more than 25 per cent of rateable value of the buildings and lands as may be fixed by the Corporation. According to the provision, under Sections 109 and 127, the rateable value would be the gross annual rent at which such building or land may at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction in the case of buildings only of sixteen and two-thirds per cent of such annual rent and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowance for repairs or on any other account whatever. However, in respect of Government buildings and buildings not ordinarily let and in the opinion of the Commissioner, the rateable value cannot be estimated, the rateable value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent of the total value of the estimated market value of the land at the time of assessment and the estimated cost of erecting the building at such time after deducting towards depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per cent of such cost. 4. After going through the provisions, no rational object and purpose can be made out for providing differential standards of rateable value provided for the buildings that are normally let out and the Government buildings and buildings which are not ordinarily let out and whose rateable value cannot be estimated by the Commissioner. The law as of now provided under the Municipal Corporations Act for assessment of rateable value is confusing and irrational. The absence of lucid legislative guidelines has encouraged and breeding corrupt practices. Whimsical methods adopted is causing harassment to the tax-payers. The fixation of rateable value on the basis of the market value of the land and the type and value of the structure as an uniform guideline for assessment would be an ideal proposition. 5. Hypothetically under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 108, the maximum maneuverability for the Corporation to vary the tax rate is in between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. That means to say, a maximum increase of 5 per cent could be made. The real estate value when not so much fluctuating, the increase of tax under Sub-section (2) cannot be more than 5 per cent of the rateable value. Therefore, the revision of tax once in four years by 100 per cent or 200 per cent increase would be totally illegal and without any legal basis. Therefore, to iron out the lacunas in the provisions the Government should seriously think and bring about changes in the provisions of law relating to the assessment of annual rental value and the rate of tax payable thereon. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Mahanagara Nagareeka Kriyasamithi Vs. Therefore, to iron out the lacunas in the provisions the Government should seriously think and bring about changes in the provisions of law relating to the assessment of annual rental value and the rate of tax payable thereon. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Mahanagara Nagareeka Kriyasamithi Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Anr., in Writ Petition No. 17094 of 2000 upheld the validity of the self assessment scheme pioneered by the Bangalore City Corporation and made the following optimistic observation in para 26: We are of the considered opinion that if the scheme has withstood the test of its good intention and has proved to be an appropriate innovative system to augment revenue of the Corporation which are direly needed to provide much needed civic amenities to the residents of Bangalore, then it may be found advisable for the Government to bring about appropriate amendment in Section 109(2) of the Act like the one under Section 130(1) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, which states that "save as may be prescribed by the rules made by the State Government...." and make appropriate rules to embody the structure of the Scheme with such modifications which make it more intelligible and rational. Such a Legislative measure will certainly meet the need of the day and give some amount of solace against the arbitrariness and corruption prevailing in the administrative wing of the Corporation as has been admitted in the impugned Scheme itself. 7. In order to inculcate and cultivate the scientific legislative approach imperatively, necessary legislative amendments are required to the Municipal Corporations Act and as well to the Karnataka Municipalities Act to obviate the confusion and dilemma in law. If so done in a large way, it would prevent the public corruption in the local bodies. The observations are made not as a judicial dicta but hopefully to impress the Government to consider the suggestions in right spirit in piloting the necessary amendments to the law on the subject. The Registry is directed to communicate the copy to the concerned Ministry which deals with Municipalities and Corporations. 8. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.