JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the owner of a house situated in Vijayanagar colony, Hyderabad questioning the judgment dated 31-8-1995 of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in M.A.No.164 of 1994 upholding the demand notice dated 30-3-1994 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.4, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, assessing the property-tax payable by the appellant w.e.f. 1-4-1993. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal is briefly as follows: 3. The appellant has a house at Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. It was originally a three-room tenement constructed by the A.P. Housing Board. In 1984 the appellant demolished the existing building and constructed a three-storied building. The ground and the first floor were let out to State Bank of India on a monthly rent of Rs.7,703-25 ps. The respondent issued a Special Notice on 10-3-1986 to the appellant proposing to fix the annual ratable value at Rs.60,000/- w.e.f. 1-4-1985 and the half yearly tax was assessed at Rs.8,748/-. The appellant filed his objections pleading that there was an agreement between the tenant-Bank and himself and as per the terms of agreement 60% of the rent shall be treated as rent and 40% shall be treated as the amount for amenities. After considering the said objection, the respondent reduced the annual ratable value from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.55,500/- through its order dated 31-3-1986 and fixed the half yearly tax at Rs.8,092-10 ps. payable w.e.f 1-4-1985. The appellant challenged the said order through M.A.No.455 of 1986 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad. The said Court allowed the appeal through its judgment dated 22-7-1987 and fixed the annual ratable value at Rs.38,300/- by accepting the apportionment of the rent towards building rent and amenities at the ratio of 60: 40. The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court fixed the annual ratable value at Rs.38,300/- by taking into consideration the apportionment of rent in the ratio of 60 : 40 towards building rent and amenities and by taking into consideration the reasonable rent in the locality by fixing the same @ Re.1/- per sq. ft. Against the said judgment, the appellant preferred C.M.S.A.No.18 of 1987 before this Court. This Court through its judgment dated 6-10-1989 confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court holding that the annual ratable value of Rs.38,300/- fixed by the Chief Judge is just and reasonable. ft. Against the said judgment, the appellant preferred C.M.S.A.No.18 of 1987 before this Court. This Court through its judgment dated 6-10-1989 confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court holding that the annual ratable value of Rs.38,300/- fixed by the Chief Judge is just and reasonable. Since then, the appellant was paying property tax as per the annual ratable value fixed by the first appellate Court. 4. Subsequently, in the year 1992, the appellant's tenant-Bank i.e., the State Bank of India enhanced the rent to Rs.9,000/- per month. The Branch Manager of the tenant-Bank gave a declaration to the authorities of the respondent that the monthly rent for the said premises is Rs.9,000/- and it does not include the rent for amenities. On the basis of the said declaration the respondent issued a Special Notice on 4-3-1994 proposing to increase the annual ratable value to Rs.1,08,000/- w.e.f. 1-4-1993 and the Special Notice was served on the appellant on 5-3-1994. The appellant filed objections to the proposed increase of the annual ratable value on 15-3-1994. The respondent heard the matter on 24-3-1994 and passed an order on 30-3-1994 confirming the proposed increase of annual ratable value at Rs.1,08,000/- w.e.f. 1-4-1993. Against the said order of the respondent the appellant filed M.A.No.164 of 1994 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and it was dismissed by the said Court on 31-8-1995. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, the appellant preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. 5. The appellant contends that the respondent did not consider the memorandum of arguments filed by him. He further pleaded that the first appellate court also passed the order in a hasty manner without providing sufficient opportunity to argue the matter and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. The point for consideration is whether the enhancement of the annual ratable value fixed by the respondent and the judgment of the first appellate court are illegal and whether they are liable to be set aside- Point: 7. 6. The point for consideration is whether the enhancement of the annual ratable value fixed by the respondent and the judgment of the first appellate court are illegal and whether they are liable to be set aside- Point: 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent-Corporation ought not have taken into consideration the annual rent paid by the tenant and ought to have determined the annual ratable value by taking into consideration the locality of the building, type of construction, plinth area, age of the building and the nature of use etc. He further contended that as the respondent failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 212 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 ("the Act' for brevity) the assessment made on the basis of the annual rent received from the tenant-Bank is liable to be set aside. 8. Section 212 (1)(a) and (b) of the Act read as follows: 212. Rateable value how to be determined:- (1) (a) The annual rental value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year with reference to its location, type of construction, plinth area, age of the building, nature of use to which it is put and such other criteria as may be prescribed; (b) the annual rental 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 at the rate of 10% for buildings aged up to 25 years; and 20% for the buildings aged above 25 years; of that portion of such gross annual rent which is attributable to the buildings, 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 whatsoever. Provided that a rebate of 40 per cent of the annual rental value shall be allowed in respect of the residential buildings occupied by the owner inclusive of the deduction permissible elsewhere. (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) xxxx (5) xxxx 9. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied on the following reported judgments. In Guntur Town R.P. Assn. (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) xxxx (5) xxxx 9. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied on the following reported judgments. In Guntur Town R.P. Assn. v. Guntur Municipal Council 1968 (2) An.W.R. a single Bench of this High Court held: 5. The gross annual rent at which a building may reasonably be expected to get from month to month or year to year is not the actual rent which a landlord may receive from a tenant, but the hypothetical rent which a landlord may lawfully receive. Where there is no statute controlling the rent which a landlord may receive from a tenant, the actual rent received by a landlord from his tenant may possibly afford the best evidence of the hypothetical rent. But, where the rent which a landlord may receive from a tenant is statutorily controlled, the hypothetical rent has to be determined by the Municipal authorities, in each case, keeping in view the principles found in the statute controlling the rent. It makes no difference whether 'fair rent'- or 'standard rent'- has, in fact, been fixed by the Controller or not. If no fair rent or standard rent has been fixed by the Controller, the Municipal authorities are not absolved from the duty of determining the rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or year to year on the basis of the principles found in the Rent Control statute. 10. In Guntur Muni. Council v. Rate-Payers' Association 1971 AIR S.C. 353 the Supreme Court while deciding a batch of civil appeals held that the Municipal authorities shall adopt the method of assessment of annual value of lands and buildings by taking into consideration the fair rent determinable under the Rent Control Act in respect of the buildings which come within the purview of the Act. 11. In Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1985 AIR SC 339 the Supreme Court held that the ratable value of a building, whether tenanted or self occupied, is limited by the measure of standard rent arrived at by the assessing authority by applying the principles laid down in the Rent Act and cannot exceed the figure of the standard rent so arrived at by the assessing authority. 12. 12. In the said decision, the Supreme Court explained the principle laid down in its earlier judgment in Diwan Daulat Rai Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1980 AIR SC 541. 13. In Bhagwant Rai v. State of Punjab 1996 AIR SC 95 the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 held that the determination of annual ratable value shall be not on the basis of annual rent received by the landlord but the standard rent expected to be received under the relevant Rent Act. 14. The Supreme Court and the A.P. High Court laid down the above principles while considering the assessment of the property tax on the buildings which come within come within the purview of the Rent Control Act. 15. Since the house of the appellant was constructed in the year 1984 and as the said house was admittedly fetching the rent more than Rs.1,000/- per month, the building will not come within the purview of the Rent Control Act. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of a single Bench of this Court in Bojjala Ganga Subbarami Reddy v. Srikalahsthi Municipality, 1991 (2) ALT 37 (NRC) wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that when the building in question is not covered by the Rent Control Act, agreed rent can be taken as the basis for assessment of the property tax. 17. In Guntur Town R.P. Assn. (1 supra) a single Judge of this Court held that if a premises is to be assessed to tax is covered by the Rent Control Act, the hypothetical rent receivable by the owner as per the provisions of the Rent Control Act has to be determined and the tax has to be levied on such rent, but not on the rent actually being received by the owner and in respect of the buildings which are not covered by the Rent Control Act, the actual rent received by the owner can form the basis for levy of property tax. 18. 18. In Guntur Municipality v. Gadde Subba Rao a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the rent actually being received by the owner can be the basis for determining the annual rental value of a building. 19. In Commissioner, Kakinada Municipality v. K. Venkateswar Rao, 2003 (5) ALT 604 this High Court held that if Rent Control Act does not apply to a premises, the agreed rent could, prima facie, be treated as a fair rent for the assessment of property tax. 20. After carefully going through the law laid down by this High Court, I am of the considered view that the procedure prescribed under Section 212 of the Act has to be adopted only when the property is covered either under the Rent Control Act or when it is not possible to know the actual rent being paid by the tenant, if it is tenant occupied, and the gross annual rent at which the building may reasonably be expected to get from month to month or from year to year with reference to its location, type of construction, plinth area, age of the building, nature of use to which it is put and such other criteria as may be prescribed. If the actual rent being paid by the tenant is known and if the Corporation is of the view that the building is fetching a reasonable rent, the respondent-Corporation is entitled to adopt the actual rent for the purpose of determining the annual ratable value to assess the building for the property tax. 21. In the light of the above circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and it is accordingly not accepted. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that though there was a judgment of this Court regarding the apportionment of the rent at 60 : 40 towards rent and amenities at the time of questioning the earlier assessment order dated 10-3-1986, the respondent without taking into consideration the earlier arrangement assessed the property tax by taking into consideration a declaration given by the Branch Manager at the time of enhancement of the rent to Rs.9,000/- p.m. in the year 1992. The learned counsel further contended that the Branch Manager who was a new man gave the said declaration being not aware of the agreement between the appellant and the tenant, therefore, he contends firstly that 40% of the rent of Rs.9,000/- shall be deducted towards amenities and the annual ratable value shall be determined only on the basis of the 60% of the rent being paid by the tenant from 1992. 23. The assessing authority i.e., the respondent being conscious that the building do not come within the purview of the Rent Control Act acted upon the declaration given by the Branch Manager of the appellant's-tenant Bank and assessed the property tax by arriving at the annual rental value w.e.f. 1-4-1993. Though the appellant's counsel pleaded that there was no knowledge to the new Branch Manager about the previous arrangements, he did not choose to produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that the earlier arrangement of apportioning the rent into 60 : 40 ratio continued after the enhancement of the rent also in the year 1992. Nothing prevented the appellant to adduce evidence to that effect, but he did not choose to take risk of getting adverse replies from the Bank Manager. The mere plea of the appellant is not going to help him when it is not supported by oral or documentary evidence. Unless there is sufficient proof that there was an agreement between the parties in the year 1992 for the apportionment of the rent and unless it is sufficiently proved, the appellant is not automatically entitled to get reduction of 40% of the rent towards amenities. 24. From the above discussion, I am made to understand that the respondent did not commit any illegality or irregularity in adopting the procedure for the assessment of the property tax of the appellant's house and I too do not find any illegality in the order of the first appellate court. The appellant is not entitled to question the quantum of the tax assessed unless he establishes that the order suffers from grave irregularity or illegality. I therefore do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on this point also. 25. The appellant is not entitled to question the quantum of the tax assessed unless he establishes that the order suffers from grave irregularity or illegality. I therefore do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on this point also. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a further question that as per Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act, the tax levied at the commencement of the 1990 Property Tax Rules shall be continued till fresh assessment is made under the new Rules. 26. The Corporation made the fresh assessment through its Special Notice dated 4-3-1994, which comes into force w.e.f. 1-4-1993. This assessment was confirmed by the respondent in the objection petition and the first appellate court through the impugned order, therefore, the question of continuing the earlier property tax till fresh assessment does not arise. This point is accordingly held against the appellant. 27. In the light of the above findings, I do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.