JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court is a Government Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. Proceedings for assessment in respect of the annual value of the total area possessed by the company within the limits of the Kanpur Nagar were initiated which resulted in an order dated 16th March, 2004. The order dated 16th March, 2004 has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The document discloses that annual value of the property of the writ petitioner was fixed at Rs. 40,70,499. The petitioner challenged the assessment order by means of Appeal No. 112/7 of 2004 and the only prayer made in the appeal was for quashing the annual rental value of the property so determined. 2. The petitioner did not challenge any demand bill of house tax and property tax based on such annual value of the property and therefore in accordance with the provisions of Section 472, the petitioner did not deposit any money at the time of filing of the appeal. 3. On record is an application of the writ petitioner, numbered as Assessment Application No. 67 of 2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), which according to the counsel for the petitioner is an application in his earlier Appeal No. 12/7 of 2004, whereby the petitioner prayed for stay of the demand of tax to the tune of Rs. 46,34,269 raised on the basis of annual value of the property of the petitioner. The demand order required the petitioner to deposit the tax within 15 days, failing which appropriate action shall be taken. The petitioner by means of the application so filed requested that the respondents may be restrained from effecting any recovery in pursuance to the order till the decision of the appeal. 4. Thereafter the petitioner made another application on 30.1.2009 stating therein that a notice has been published by the Kanpur Nagar Nigam for auction and sale of the petitioner’s property towards realization of Rs. 53,55,919.30p. qua the house tax said to be due. The petitioner by this application prayed for the auction/attachment proceedings being kept in abeyance till his appeal against the assessment was decided. 5. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, it was stated that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 31st March, 2008 and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 26.11.2008 towards the tax sought to be recovered. 6. 5. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, it was stated that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 31st March, 2008 and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 26.11.2008 towards the tax sought to be recovered. 6. The appellate Court has rejected the said applications filed by the writ petitioner after recording that the amount demanded against the writ petitioner under various bills of demand, recovery whereof is sought to be stayed, works out to Rs. 53,55,919.30, and that the mandatory requirement of Section 472 of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Act, 1959, qua deposit of the entire amount demanded first, before his challenge to the same be considered, has not been complied. It is against this order of the appellate authority that the present writ petition has been filed. 7. On behalf of the writ petitioner it is contended that the appeal as filed by the writ petitioner was confined to the fixation of the annual value of the property only and since at that time no tax was demanded, there was no question of deposit of any amount under Section 472 for the appeal being made competent for hearing. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, State Warehouse, Bulandshahr v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr and others (Writ Petition No. 259 of 1998) decided on 10th October, 1999 for contending that the amount of tax, as was due on the date of filing of the appeal, alone is required to be deposited under Section 472 of the Municipal Corporation Act and demands for further periods are not to be taken into consideration for determining the amount payable under Section 472. Since the petitioner had already deposited 25 lacs which is more than the amount of tax due on the date the appeal was filed, the Court below was not justified in asking the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 53,55,919.30p. Therefore, the rejection of the applications is rendered illegal. 8. I have heard Sri V.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. 9. It is clear from the facts on record that petitioner in his appeal had prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.3.2004, whereby the annual value of the petitioner’s property was determined. 8. I have heard Sri V.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. 9. It is clear from the facts on record that petitioner in his appeal had prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.3.2004, whereby the annual value of the petitioner’s property was determined. No bill of demand qua property tax/house tax on the basis of said annual value was challenged, nor any such order demanding the tax has been challenged till date by way of appeal either by filing an amendment application in the pending appeal or by filing a separate appeal against the bill of demand of tax. 10. In the year 2006, when recovery proceedings qua the house tax and property tax assessed were initiated, the writ petitioner only made an application in his pending appeal of 2004 stating therein that such recovery may not be effected till decision of appeal. Thereafter, when auction notice was published for enforcing the recovery in respect of outstanding tax, the petitioner filed second application in his pending appeal seeking stay of the auction. 11. At the pain of repetition it is recorded that at no point of time any appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the levy of the property tax or the demand thereof. The petitioner wanted to take benefit of pendency of his appeal, which was only in respect of fixation of the annual value of the property in question and the reason for the same appears to be an attempt to evade the liability of payment of the required amount under Section 472 of the Municipal Corporation Act. 12. Section 172(1) read with Section 173 of the Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1959) authorises imposition of tax on the annual value of the building or land or of both. Section 199 to 203 lay down the mode for imposition of such tax. Section 207 provides for the preparation of the assessment list in respect of properties to be subjected to tax by the municipality. The list is required to be published under Section 208 and Section 209 permits filing of objection against the proposed rates and the list which are required to be decided by Municipal Commissioner. Section 211 provides for revision and duration of the list and Section 212 attaches conclusiveness to entries in the list. The list is required to be published under Section 208 and Section 209 permits filing of objection against the proposed rates and the list which are required to be decided by Municipal Commissioner. Section 211 provides for revision and duration of the list and Section 212 attaches conclusiveness to entries in the list. While Section 213 provides for amendment and alteration of the assessment list including entering of name of any person or any property which ought to have been entered or any property which has become liable to taxation after the authentication of the assessment list etc. Section 472 provides for appeals to be filed against annual value, or the tax fixed or demanded. Such appeals are to be heard by the Judge. 13. Under the aforesaid Section 472 the assessment of the value of a particular building as well as tax fixed or charged can be subjected to an appeal under Section 472(1). Section 472(2)(d) and 472(e) of the Act impose conditions qua hearing of appeals filed. Sections 472(1), 472(2)(d) and 472(2)(e), which are relevant in the facts of the case, reads as follows : “472. Appeals when and to whom to lie.—(1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, appeals against any annual value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge : [Provided that any such appeal pending at any stage before the Judge may be transferred by the District Judge for hearing and disposal, to any Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes or Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge having jurisdiction in the City.] (2) No such appeal shall be heard unless— (a) ........... (b) ........... (c) ........... [(d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment or alteration made in the assessment list for property taxes under sub-section (1) of Section 213, an objection has been made in pursuance of a notice issued under the proviso to the said sub-section and such objection has been disposed of;] (e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against an annual value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been presented to the appellant, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Municipal Commissioner.” 14. From the facts, which are on record, it is apparently clear that the appeal against the amendment/alteration made in the assessment list in the year 2004. He was not granted any stay order in the aforesaid appeal. The Municipal Corporation, therefore, proceeded to issue bill of demand for property tax assessed on such valuation. 15. The appellant for the reasons best known to him did not file any separate appeal against the bill of demand of the property tax although it was so maintainable under Section 472(1) read with 472(2) instead he choose to file an application for stay of the recovery of the tax in the appeal filed by him against the alteration in the list. Since no independent appeal was filed by the petitioner against the bill for the property tax and only an application in his pending appeal against amendment in the list was filed for stay of the bill of tax raised, two consequences in the eye of law would follows : (a) Either the interim stay applications filed are to be held as outside the scope of the appeal filed; or (b) The applications be treated to be in the nature of an appeal made against the annual value qua which a bill of property tax has been raised and presented to the appellant. 16. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is taken to be correct, consequence as per (a) will follow i.e. his appeal is not referable to the amount of tax demanded and his appeal was against amendment in the assessment only. The interim stay prayed for by the petitioner against the bill of demand of property tax in such an appeal would be outside the scope of the appeal filed. 17. Bill of demand of property tax cannot be stayed in an appeal whereunder the demand has not been challenged. 18. If the application made against the bill of tax demanded are treated to be independent. Appeals referable to Section 472(2)(e) of the Act, 1959 then the Judge is justified in insisting upon the deposit of the amount so demanded and challenged. Such requirement of pre-deposit is based on simple reading of the Section 472(2)(e). 19. 18. If the application made against the bill of tax demanded are treated to be independent. Appeals referable to Section 472(2)(e) of the Act, 1959 then the Judge is justified in insisting upon the deposit of the amount so demanded and challenged. Such requirement of pre-deposit is based on simple reading of the Section 472(2)(e). 19. At this stage Court may take note of the judgment of this Court in the case of Padampat Singhania v. Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur, 1967 ALJ 956, whereunder it has been held as follows : “The requirements of Section 472(2)(e) of the Adhiniyam are still clearer. Section 472(2)(e) is in the following terms : “472(2)(e). No such appeal shall be heard unless— (a) ........... (b) ........... (c) ........... [(d) ........ (e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against an annual value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been presented to the appellant, the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Mukhya Nagar “Adhikari”. A mere reading of the provision makes it obvious that only an amount of property tax assessed upon such value as is the subject-matter of the appeal is required to be deposited by the appellant. In my opinion, the mere fact that a composite notice of demand was issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay not only tax under the assessments, which formed the subject-matter of the appeal as also arrears due on the basis of valuation under the earlier assessment, did not require the appellants to deposit the entire amount demanded before the appeal filed by him could be heard and determined.” 20. The judgment, therefore, clarifies that the appeal has to be decided with reference to the subject-matter of the appeal and not beyond it. 21. The petitioner, therefore, could not have asked for an interim protection beyond the scope of the appeal. 22. The order passed by the Judge in these circumstances insisting upon the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of bill of tax sought to be got stayed cannot be said to be illegal. 23. 21. The petitioner, therefore, could not have asked for an interim protection beyond the scope of the appeal. 22. The order passed by the Judge in these circumstances insisting upon the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of bill of tax sought to be got stayed cannot be said to be illegal. 23. If the petitioner seeks hearing of his appeal without insisting upon the stay of the bill of tax, as it is not the subject-matter/within the scope of the appeal, he is at liberty to make an application for hearing of his appeal even now. 24. Writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation made. ———