JUDGMENT: This is plaintiff's appeal. Originally one P. Ranga Reddy filed O.S.No.111 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, for declaration that special notice dated 29.09.1986 enhancing the half yearly property tax in respect of premises bearing door No.40/318 (lodging building) and another similar special notice dated 29.09.1986 in respect of premises bearing door No.40/317-D1 (godown building) are illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant municipality (respondent herein) from realising said amount. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20.03.1990, aggrieved by which, this appeal suit is filed. Pending the appeal, original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. 2. The plaintiff was owner of considerably huge complex. It consists of godown building, which has 16 godowns under the occupation of the tenants. There is a hotel in the complex known as Raj Vihar. Ground floor of the complex contains 15 shop rooms and one pan bunk besides 28 single rooms and 28 double rooms, some of which are deluxe rooms. To begin with, half yearly tax for both the portions was Rs.4,457/-. In 1983 for godown building, tax was enhanced to Rs.7,593/- and for lodging building to Rs.16,404/- . Plaintiff assailed the notices by filing O.S.No.61 of 1983. The same was decreed on 31.07.1984 and plaintiff continued to pay a sum of Rs.4,457/- as half yearly tax for both the portions of the complex. In 1986, the municipal commissioner of the defendant municipality issued impugned notices and enhanced half yearly tax. For lodging building it was enhanced to Rs.26,358/- and for godown building it was enhanced to Rs.23,960/-. Plaintiff filed revision, which was rejected confirming upward enhancement. Therefore, plaintiff filed O.S.No.111 of 1987. He alleged that enhancement of tax is illegal and arbitrary because no additions or improvements were made after the previous assessment, that as per the instructions of the Director of Municipal Administration issued in 1977, unless there are additions and improvements, there cannot be any enhancement of property tax and that the enhancement is contrary to Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Municipalities Act, for brevity). 3. The defendant municipality opposed the suit. 3. The defendant municipality opposed the suit. In the written statement defendant municipality alleged that against the decree in O.S.No.61 of 1983, an appeal was filed which is pending. It was further alleged that general tax revision as required under Rule 8(1) of schedule II of the Municipalities Act i.e., Taxation and Financial Rules (Taxation Rules, for brevity) was taken up for the plaintiff's complex after lapse of twenty years and that Valuation Officer personally inspected and arrived at monthly rental value of Rs.13,000/- for the godown building and Rs.14,300/- for lodging building as they were situated centrally in commercial area of the town. 4. The learned trial Judge framed appropriate issues. Son of the plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. Exs.A1 and A2 are special notices issued by the municipal commissioner, Ex.A3 is revision petition filed by the plaintiff, Exs.A5 and A6 are income tax returns and Exs.A7 and A8 are endorsements given by the defendant municipality rejecting the revision. Ex.A4 is the copy of the judgment in O.S.No.61 of 1983 dated 31.07.1984. The defendant examined its Valuation Officer as D.W.1. A clerk was also examined as D.W.2. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant municipality followed the procedure and guidelines laid down under Section 87(2)(b) of the Municipalities Act and that Exs.A1 and A2 notices are not illegal. 5. In this appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the learned trial Judge was in error in not following Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Rent Act, for brevity) and that as Ex.A4 judgment being inter parties is binding, the learned trial Judge committed error in not considering the same. Lastly he submits that Exs.A5 and A6 (Income tax returns) would probablise the case of the plaintiff that he let out lodging building to M/s Raj Vihar enterprises, a firm which was paying Rs.30,000/- per annum as rent and that if this is taken into consideration fixation of monthly rental value of Rs.14,300/- for lodging building would be rendered illegal and erroneous. 6. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel for Municipalities appearing for the respondent/defendant municipality submits that plaintiff has not preferred appeal to the appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules and therefore, under Section 376 of the Municipalities Act the suit is barred. Secondly he submits that in the case of the plaintiff's buildings, revision was taken up after lapse of twenty years and if only such revision had been effected, periodically half yearly tax would have been much more. He, therefore, submits that the provisions of Section 87 of the Municipalities Act are followed and evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is trustworthy. Lastly he submits that in view of Section 87(3) of the Municipalities Act, the provisions of Section 4 of the Rent Act would not apply. 7. The points that arise for consideration are as follows. (i) Whether the defendant municipality is bound to follow Section 4 of the Rent Act while assessing monthly rental value for the purpose of levying property tax? (ii) Whether municipality has followed the provisions of Section 87 of Municipalities Act while issuing Exs.A1 and A2 special notices enhancing half yearly tax? and (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to avail the remedies provided under Municipalities Act? Point (i) 8. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in K. Ramayya v Guntur Municipal Council1 in support of the contention that while assessing annual rental value (ARV) for the purpose of levying the property tax, the municipality is bound to take into consideration fair rent as per Section 4 of the Rent Act. He submits that though this decision was cited before the learned trial Judge, the issue was not considered having regard to the decision of this Court in Md. Ataur Rahman Khan v Md. Kamaluddin Ahmed2, wherein Section 4 of the Rent Act was held to be unconstitutional. He submits that the view in Md. Ataur Rahman Khan (supra) is no more good law having regard to the subsequent judgment in Suresh Gir v K. Sahadev3 wherein Section 4 of the Rent Act was held to be intra vires. 9. Kamaluddin Ahmed2, wherein Section 4 of the Rent Act was held to be unconstitutional. He submits that the view in Md. Ataur Rahman Khan (supra) is no more good law having regard to the subsequent judgment in Suresh Gir v K. Sahadev3 wherein Section 4 of the Rent Act was held to be intra vires. 9. K. Ramayya (supra) lays down that when a building is governed by the provisions of the Rent Act, the assessing authority has to determine gross ARV expected to fetch after giving statutory reduction taking into consideration Section 4 of the Rent Act. Therefore, it is only when the building is governed by the Rent Act, municipal authority has to keep in mind Section 4 of the Rent Act. Indeed as pointed out by the learned trial Judge, there is no difference in the language used in Section 4(2) of the Rent Act and Section 87(2) of the Municipalities Act. Even otherwise K. Ramayya (supra) is no more an authority for the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants for the reasons as below. 10. Section 87 of the Municipalities Act was substituted by a new Section 87 by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 20 of 1989 with effect from 01.11.1990. After amendment Sub-Sections (1) to (3) read as under. 87. Method of assessment of property tax:- (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 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. (3) Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the gross annual rent at which the lands and buildings might reasonably be expected to be let from month to month or from year to year, shall be determined by the Commissioner, 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. (emphasis supplied) 11. A perusal of Section 87(3) of the Municipalities Act would show that ARV of land and buildings shall be gross annual rent at which they may reasonably expected to be let with reference to location, type of construction, plinth area, age of building, nature of use to which it is put. In view of 'non- obstinate' clause with which Section 87(3) of Municipalities Act begins, the Rent Act has no affect on assessment of ARV by the municipal authorities. Whether Section 4 of the Rent Act stands annulled or remains in the statute book, in view of Section 87(3) of the Municipalities Act, it makes no difference. Therefore, this Court is not able to countenance submissions made by learned counsel for appellants. The point is decided against them. Point (ii) 12. D.W.1 is Valuation Officer. He has personally inspected godown and lodging buildings of the plaintiff, made enquiries, recorded statement of one of the tenants, collected rental values of the surrounding buildings and came to the conclusion that Rs.14,300/- would be gross monthly rental value of the lodging building and Rs.13,000/- for godown building. In view of the language employed in Section 376 of the Municipalities Act, the assessment made by D.W.1 under the Municipalities Act cannot be questioned before the civil Court. The only limited ground on which such assessment can be questioned is when an allegation is made that the provisions of the Municipalities Act are not complied with. A perusal of evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 would belie any such submission that provisions of the Municipalities Act are not followed. Indeed P.W.1 made certain admissions which would probablise correctness of the assessment made by D.W.1, which was basis for issuing Exs.A1 and A2 notices. A perusal of evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 would belie any such submission that provisions of the Municipalities Act are not followed. Indeed P.W.1 made certain admissions which would probablise correctness of the assessment made by D.W.1, which was basis for issuing Exs.A1 and A2 notices. The learned trial Judge has given very weighty reasons to come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove that procedure and guidelines under Section 87(2)(b) of the Municipalities Act are not followed. This Court agrees with the reasoning of learned trial Court as there are no compelling circumstances flowing from the evidence on record to differ from the view of the trial Court. Therefore, this point is decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant. Point (iii) 13. Section 376 of the Municipalities Act bars a civil suit in respect of assessment or charge imposed or levies collected except on the ground that the provisions of the Municipalities Act have not been complied with. The Taxation Rules in schedule II of the Municipalities Act provide for method and manner of levying and collecting taxes. Section 130 of the Municipalities Act lays down that Rules and tables embodied in Schedule II form part of Chapter-II of Part-IV thereof. Dealing with finances of the Municipality, Schedule-II i.e., the Taxation Rules contains 61 Rules and three appendices. Rules 2 to 28 are provisions common to taxes in general. Out of these, Rules 6 to 11 deal with assessment of property tax in respect of land and/or buildings in the municipality. 14. After issuing a special notice or demand notice for payment or assessment of tax, an aggrieved person is given right to move the Commissioner of Municipality by way of revision under Rule 12 of the Taxation Rules to reduce the tax on the ground that the capital value or ARV of the property has decreased since the assessment of the property was made or revised. After disposal of the revision petition by the Commissioner, the aggrieved person is again given a right of appeal under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules to Appellate Commissioner appointed by the Government for that purpose. Such appeal has to be filed within fifteen days from the order of the Commissioner in revision under Rule 12 of the Taxation Rules. Section 376(2) of the Municipalities Act bars a suit in respect of an assessment of property tax. Such appeal has to be filed within fifteen days from the order of the Commissioner in revision under Rule 12 of the Taxation Rules. Section 376(2) of the Municipalities Act bars a suit in respect of an assessment of property tax. However, if a case is made out that the provisions of the Municipalities Act have not been complied with while assessing property tax or revising property tax, impliedly a suit for recovery of tax or levy paid to municipality is not barred. Therefore, even in such a case, the aggrieved person has to avail the remedies of revision under Rule 12 and then appeal under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules. In the absence of availing of such remedies, suit cannot be entertained. 15. Admittedly the plaintiff has not availed the remedy of Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules. In such circumstances, the suit would not lie. This view is supported by the judgment of this Court in M/s. Parvathi Combines v Visakhapatnam Municipal Council, Visakhapatnam4, wherein it was held as under. When a statute creates a right or liability and makes inbuilt provision therein to agitate matters pertaining to the rights and liabilities, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be, to the extent the jurisdiction is conferred upon the statutory Tribunal, necessarily excluded. In such cases, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is confined only to ascertain the jurisdictional fact as to whether the case is of such a nature for which the jurisdiction is vested in another Tribunal or in other words whether the power has been exercised by the statutory forum with jurisdiction. Once the conclusion is reached that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the matter, the Civil Court must stay its hands, the matter having been specifically entrusted to the special Tribunal created. So far as the present statute is concerned, leave apart the question of ouster of jurisdiction by necessary implication, there is an express ouster of the jurisdiction as the trial Court itself had found the provisions of the statute had been complied within making the assessment. (emphasis supplied) 16. In Srikant Kashinath Jituri v Corporation of the City of Belgaum5, the Supreme Court considered whether a suit would lie against assessment made by the municipal authorities even though an aggrieved person has not availed the remedy of appeal. The Supreme Court laid down as under. (emphasis supplied) 16. In Srikant Kashinath Jituri v Corporation of the City of Belgaum5, the Supreme Court considered whether a suit would lie against assessment made by the municipal authorities even though an aggrieved person has not availed the remedy of appeal. The Supreme Court laid down as under. Learned counsel contended that if a writ petition is maintainable without filing the second appeal provided by Rule 20, a suit is equally maintainable. In our opinion, the said contention is based upon a misconception. Such an onerous provision may be a ground for entertaining a writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy provided by the statute is not an adequate or efficacious remedy (see Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh), but that can never be a ground for maintaining a civil suit. Both the jurisdictions are different and are governed by different principles. Article 226 provides a constitutional remedy.It confers the power of judicial review on High Courts.The finality clause in a statute is not a bar to the exercise of this constitutional power whereas the jurisdiction of a civil court arises from another statute, viz., S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a case, the bar arising from an express provision like Rule 25, or arising by necessary intendment can be overridden only in cases and situations pointed out in Dhulabhai v State of M.P.7. 17. In the present case the plaintiff filed revision - Ex.A3 on 25.10.1996. The defendant municipality issued endorsements - Exs.A7 and A8 informing the plaintiff that the property tax assessment as revised in Exs.A1 and A2 is confirmed. Without availing the remedy under Rule 22 of the Taxation Rules, the plaintiff directly approached the civil Court and filed the suit. Applying the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Parvathi Combines (supra) and the Supreme Court in Srikant Kashinath Jituri (supra), it must be held that the suit is barred. It is no doubt true that the defendant municipality did not take a specific plea in the written statement and there was no issue framed. The same does not, however, preclude the defendant municipality from raising the ground especially when the issue goes to the very root of the matter. 18. In the result, the appeal suit fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.