Judgment : 1. Theunsuccessful defendant before the lower appellate Court has filed this second appeal. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 1977 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.265 of 1977, for a decree that the order dated 31.3.1977 has to be declared as illegal and arbitrary, and the defendants should be prevented from enforcing the same. 3. Theplaintiffs/respondents are the owners of the premises bearing Door No. 40-A1/1146, New Door No. 119, Cherry Road, Salem, which has been used as a lodging house. The said building was assessed to property tax at the rate of Rs.607.31 per half year. Since the plaintiffs put up II floor, the appellant/defendant issued a notice proposing to enhance the tax at the rate of Rs.1214.50 per half year. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.384 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem questioning the validity of the same. Ultimately, the said proposal was held as void and unenforceable by the Courts. Thereafter, the officials inspected the building and sent a notice on 1.9.1976 proposing to enhance the half yearly rent, and the plaintiffs were called upon to submit their objections. The objections were submitted through their counsel on 26.9.1976. A personal hearing was held on 11.1.1977. The main objection raised was that the proposal for enhancement is without any basis, arbitrary and illegal. The defendant passed an order on 31.3.1977, fixing the half yearly tax at Rs. 11,421.74 on the basis that annual rental value is Rs.67,435. Challenging this order, without filing any appeal, the plaintiffs filed the said suit. 4. The appellant filed a written statement contending inter-alia that since the plaintiffs have put up an additional construction after the earlier proceedings, the proposed notice was issued after proper inspection. Considering the locality in which the building is situated, the nature of the building and the amenities provided in the building and the expenses incurred by the owner, the annual rental value was fixed originally at Rs.79,000. It is specifically stated that the plaintiffs have admitted that a single room is let out for Rs.7 and the double room at Rs.14 per day. After perusing the bill books and other accounts, the Commissioner fixed the said annual rental value at Rs.79,000, giving 25% reduction for vacancy and 6% for the cost of furniture etc. It is specifically stated that the plaintiffs have admitted that a single room is let out for Rs.7 and the double room at Rs.14 per day. After perusing the bill books and other accounts, the Commissioner fixed the said annual rental value at Rs.79,000, giving 25% reduction for vacancy and 6% for the cost of furniture etc. Though the proposal was for Rs.79,000, after enquiry pursuant to the notice, the annual value was fixed only at Rs.67,435. It is the case of the appellant that the plaintiffs did not question the order by filing appeal before the tax Appeal Committee. On the basis of the above pleadings, it is submitted that as they have followed the procedures contemplated under the Act, fixing the annual rental value, the suit is not maintainable. 5. The plaintiffs did not choose to examine any body to prove their case. The defendant examined one Venugopal and marked the documents. The trial Court dismissed the suit accepting the case of the defendant. The lower appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiffs in A.S.No. 211 of 1982 allowed the appeal and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs. Hence the defendant has filed this second appeal. 6. The only question to be decided in this case is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with the correctness of the assessment of the property tax on the ground that the assessment was made without making any exclusion of the value of machinery and furniture while making valuation under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act? (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 7. Theappellant-municipality was sought to assess the property tax of the property owned by the respondents after following the procedures contemplated under the Act. Though the respondents challenged the said order before the civil Court without filing any statutory appeal, no specific flaw or irregularity has been pointed out in the plaint. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the respondents/plaintiffs have come forward with the general statement stating that the assessment is without any basis. Only at the time of trial the plaintiffs have developed their case stating that the assessment cannot be sustained in law in view of the fact that the machinery and furniture have to be excluded from valuation, which has not seen done in this case. 8. Only at the time of trial the plaintiffs have developed their case stating that the assessment cannot be sustained in law in view of the fact that the machinery and furniture have to be excluded from valuation, which has not seen done in this case. 8. It is well settled that no suit will lie against any matter for assessment, even if the decision is wrong. A civil Court is neither an appellate forum nor a revisional authority to determine the correct rental value on which the tax is assessed. Only if there is none compliance with the provisions of the Act, the civil Court can step into the matter and decide about the correctness of the assessment on that basis. In this case, though the plaintiffs have not raised the same in the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiffs that proviso (b) to Sec.82(2) of the Act was not followed. To appreciate the said Section, it is beneficial to extract the same, which runs as follows:- “82. Method of assessment of premises;- (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. (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, often per cent of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and 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) ... (aa) ... (b) machinery and furniture shall be excluded from valuations under this section. 9. The trial Court while dealing with the said objection raised by the plaintiffs has found that the method adopted by the municipality to assess the property tax is on a reasonable basis. Ex-B-4 working sheet was considered by the trial Court to come to such a conclusion. It is better to extract the same for better appreciation of the facts, which is as follows: - SUNDAR LODGE (Dr.No.40/A1/1146, Cherry Road, Salem) A. Ground Floor 1. Ex-B-4 working sheet was considered by the trial Court to come to such a conclusion. It is better to extract the same for better appreciation of the facts, which is as follows: - SUNDAR LODGE (Dr.No.40/A1/1146, Cherry Road, Salem) A. Ground Floor 1. One No. of Single room with single bed at Rs.7 per day per room 7.00 2. 12Nos. of double rooms with double beds at Rs.14 per room per day 168.00 B. First Floor (a) 2 Nos. of single rooms with single bed at Rs.7 per day per room 14.00 (b) 6 Nos. of double rooms with double beds at Rs.14 per day per room 56.00 C. Second Floor (a). 3 Nos. of Single rooms with single bed at Rs.7 per day per room 21.00 (b) 5 Nos. of double rooms with double beds at Rs.14 per day per room 70.00 (C) 5 Nos. of rooms with 3 beds in each at Rs. 14 per day per room 70.00 (d) 1 No. of room with 4 beds at Rs.14 per day per room 14.00 D. Third Floor (a) 1 No. of single room with Single bed at Rs.7 per day per room 7.00 (b) 6 Nos. of double rooms with double beds at Rs.14 per day per room 84.00 (C) 5 Nos. of rooms with 3 beds in each at 14 per day per room 70.00 (d) 1 No. of room with 4 beds at Rs.14 per day per room 14.00 Per day total Rs 679.00 Annual Rental Value 679 x 365 days 2,47,835.00 Deduct 30% for vacancy 74,350.00 ————— 1,73,485.00 ————— Cost of Furniture at Rs.500 74,350.00 Per single room. 7 x 500 3,500.00 Rs. 1000 per double room 29 x 1000 29,000.00 Rs.1250 per 3 bed rooms 14 x 1250 17,500.00 Rs.1500 per 4 bed rooms 2 x 1500 3,000.00 Pump set. 7 x 500 3,500.00 Rs. 1000 per double room 29 x 1000 29,000.00 Rs.1250 per 3 bed rooms 14 x 1250 17,500.00 Rs.1500 per 4 bed rooms 2 x 1500 3,000.00 Pump set. 2,000.00 ————— 55,000.00 Deduct 6% on cost of furniture on Rs.55,000 3300.00 ————— 1,70,185.00 ————— ` 1,70, 185.00 Deduct 40% on Rs.2,47,835 for lodging portions only towards charges one item like Establishment, lighting linen water charges and also to keep in park with the existing assessment for lodging houses in Tiruchirapalli Municipality 99,134.00 G.A.R. value for lodging portions 71,051.00 One office room in ground floor measuring 15-3/4 x 9-3/4 may reasonable fetch on monthly rental value of Rs.100.00 1200.00 ———— Annual Rental value 72,251.00 1/3 Land value 24,083.00 ———— 2/3 building value 48,166.00 10% depreciation 4,816.00 ———— Net Building value 43,352.00 Add land value 24,083.00 ———— Net Annual Rental value 67,435.00 ———— Half Yearly Tax on Annual Rental value 11,421.74 Sd/ Commissioner Salem Municipality.” But, the lower appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree or the trial Court, interfered with the same only on the basis that the value of machinery and furniture has not been deducted. 10. learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that such a deduction can be made only when contractors method or valuation is adopted and not while fixing the annual rental value. The annual rental value has to be determined not with reference to the value of property in the hands or occupier or the owner. The only value of the land and or any building erected for letting out purposes or ordinarily let out, must be the rent which the landlord might realise, if such building was let out. The municipality is not bound by the annual rent paid by the tenant and the rent fixed under the lease deed, but, it should normally be taken into account as prima facie evidence, in the absence of proof that any other element was responsible for fixing up lower rent. 11. he present case, on the basis of the materials furnished by the respondents/plaintiffs with reference to the rent collected, the annual rental value was fixed. While fixing such annual rental value, 6% of the cost of the furniture has been deducted on the ground that such rent might have been paid even for providing such furniture. 11. he present case, on the basis of the materials furnished by the respondents/plaintiffs with reference to the rent collected, the annual rental value was fixed. While fixing such annual rental value, 6% of the cost of the furniture has been deducted on the ground that such rent might have been paid even for providing such furniture. The plaintiffs have come forward with the plea that in view of the above said proviso to the Act, the entire value of furniture should be deducted. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the decision in Municipal Council, Tirunelveli v. Haniffa , 1969 (2) MLJ 495 , to sustain the objection raised by the plaintiffs before the Court. In the said decision, the learned Judges have held as follows:- “ From the earlier times, under the Rating Act in England, it is the inhabitant who is taxed and it is in respect of the value of his occupation that the rate is levied as distinct from the value of the property to the owner. Under the District Municipalities Act, the annual value is the annual of the property belonging to the owner and the property belonging to the tenant, whether machinery or furniture will have to be excluded. Further, if the lands belonged to one person and buildings to another, pro perty tax cannot be levied upon the annual value of the lands and the buildings put together. The property tax will have to be assessed separately. In this valuation, the value of machinery or furniture, even if provided by the landlord, should be excluded. In some other States like Bombay, etc., the value of the machinery and furniture also is included in the determination of the annual value. But in all the States, the law is uniform that the properties provided by the tenant, either machinery or furniture or any other amenity, will have to be excluded from the determination of the annual value.” Though the issue was different in the abovesaid decision, the learned Judges have observed that machinery and furniture have to be excluded while fixing the annual value. The said observation has been made on the basis of the abovesaid proviso to the Act. 12. The said observation has been made on the basis of the abovesaid proviso to the Act. 12. There cannot be any dispute that the proviso to the Act insists to exclude the value of machinery and furniture, which should be understood as that it should not be taken into consideration while fixing the annual rental value. The value of machinery and furniture should not be added while fixing the annual rental value. The said provision should not be misunderstood that irrespective of the fact that the value of machinery and furniture, while fixing the annual rental value, was not taken into consideration, it should be deducted. That is not the intention of the Legislature. Even in Webster’s Dictionary, “Exclude” has been explained as “to keep out, prevent or forbid the entry of.” 13. From a reading of the said provision, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature is that the value of machinery and furniture should not be taken into consideration for fixing the annual rental value. That does not mean that in whatever method the rent is fixed, the value of machinery should be deducted as claimed by the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the scope of the said proviso to the Act. 14. In this case, while fixing the annual rental value, the municipality has not added the value of the machineries and furniture. So, the question of deducting the same will not arise. No other infirmity in the assessment has been projected on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs even before this Court, and in view of the findings of this Court given supra, the question of excluding the value of the machinery and furniture as alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs does not arise in this case. The lower appellate Court is not correct in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 15. For all the reasons stated above, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored. Consequently, this second appeal is allowed with costs.