JUDGMENT: The respondent herein filed O.S. No.125 of 1986 challenging the property tax assessment as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant or its agents from recovering any amount exceeding the existing property tax. The assessment relates to four shops and five kudiyirupus. According to the respondent, it is one unit and therefore only one assessment shall be made. 2. In 1985-1986, according to the respondent, without any basis, the property tax was raised by 1/2 times. The reason given for the increase is ‘on the basis of the monthly rental value’. According to the respondent, there is nothing to show, from whom they got the details regarding the monthly rental value and since the statutory appeal also ended adverse to the respondent, the suit had been filed. 3. The appellant resisted the suit stating that the properties come within the jurisdiction of the panchayat and are liable to be assessed to property tax once in five years. The case of the respondent that the property tax should be assessed on the basis of the Rent Control Act was not accepted. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court reversed it and therefore the Town Panchayat has filed the present second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the levy of property tax is only in accordance with the Act and the appellate remedy was not availed of and therefore the suit itself is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit the tax demanded was illegal. 6. Sec.172 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 deals with the house tax and the manner in which it should be assessed. In this case, the appeal was allowed on the ground that the tax was not based on the fair rent and fair rent was not assessed in accordance with Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The appellate Court also observed that the fair rent cannot be fixed arbitrarily by examining the tenants orally. 7. It is now settled law that the authorities cannot assess the annual value arbitrarily. They must fix the fair or standard rent, payable for a particular premises. Schedule 1 deals with the manner in which properties are classified and how rates applicable to the respective categories are determined. 7. It is now settled law that the authorities cannot assess the annual value arbitrarily. They must fix the fair or standard rent, payable for a particular premises. Schedule 1 deals with the manner in which properties are classified and how rates applicable to the respective categories are determined. A perusal of the appellate Court judgment shows that this has not been done. In fact, the appellate Court judgment reads as follows: (void) 8. The Act itself has laid down guidelines for assessing property tax and the Courts have also clearly held that the authorities cannot fix the property tax by assessing value arbitrally. If the appellant has determined the value by merely asking the tenants and that too behind the back of the respondent, to arrive at the value of the property, the appellate Court’s approach cannot be held to be erroneous. 9. The substantial questions of law that were framed at the time of admission are as follows: (1) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment of the trial Court by holding that the property tax has to be levied on the basis of the fair rent as provided under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act? (2) Whether the lower appellate Court ought to be on the basis provided under the Panchayats Act? 10. Since the appellate Court has held that the property tax was levied not on the basis of the guidelines and rules framed under the Act but arbitrarily, these questions cannot help the appellant. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.