Judgment :- Second Appeal No.4/2007 arises out of the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.15/2004 confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.63/2002 and dismissing the suit challenging the assessment in respect of Door No.30A/3 [Assessment No.784]. 2. Second Appeal No.5/2007 arises out of the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.16/2004 confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.65/2002 and dismissing the suit challenging the assessment in respect of Door No.30B/5 [Assessment No.785]. 3. Though Courts below dealt with both the suits by separate Judgments, since common points are involved, both the Appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed by this common Judgment. .4. Brief facts which led to the filing of suits are as follows:- .In the year 1999, Plaintiff constructed two shops in the first floor and leased the shops to third parties for rent. Hence two separate Door Nos. were given by the Municipality in respect of two shops in the first floor as Door No.30A/3 and 30B/5 respectively and for those two shops half year tax has been revised at Rs.887/- and Rs.999/- [Assessment Nos.784 & 785] against which Plaintiff preferred Revision and Appeal and then the half yearly tax was reduced to Rs.484/- and Rs.544/- respectively. 5. Plaintiff mainly challenged the Assessment Nos.784 and 785 in respect of Door Nos.30A/3 and 30B/5 as illegal and arbitrary and that the assessment was made against the rules laid under District Municipalities Act and Plaintiff has sought for declaration that the assessment made under Assessment Nos.784 and 785 for the plaint schedule property – Door Nos.30A/3 and 30B/5 is illegal and arbitrary and also sought for injunction. According to the Plaintiff in the year 2000, since the entire ground floor and first floor are very old and dilapidated and after demolition, Plaintiff had put up the construction. Grievance of the Appellant is that earlier, there was only two assessments – one for the ground floor and another for the first floor. In the year 2000 for the first floor alone two assessments were made in Assessment Nos.111 and 112 for ground floor and for first floor in Assessment Nos.784 and 785. Challenging the enhancement of tax in respect of first floor as arbitrary and in violation of provisions of District Municipalities Act, Plaintiff has filed suits in O.S.Nos.63/2002 and 65/2002 respectively. 6. Challenging the enhancement of tax in respect of first floor as arbitrary and in violation of provisions of District Municipalities Act, Plaintiff has filed suits in O.S.Nos.63/2002 and 65/2002 respectively. 6. Defendant-Municipality resisted the suit contending that Plaintiff has exhausted the remedies by filing Revision and Appeal and the half yearly tax was reduced to Rs.484/-and Rs.544/- respectively and only after giving sufficient opportunity to the Plaintiff, orders were passed in the Appeal and Revision. It was further averred, if the Plaintiff aggrieved by the orders of Taxation Appellate Committee, under Sec.89(3) of the Act Plaintiff ought to have preferred appeal before the District Judge and the present suits filed by the Plaintiff are not maintainable. 7. On the above pleadings, relevant Issues were framed in both the suits. In both the suits, Plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of Defendant-Municipality, Revenue Inspector was examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked respectively. 8. Upon consideration of evidence, trial court held that before fixing the rental value, sufficient opportunity was given to the Plaintiff. It was further held that only after construction of new additional construction in the first floor and after due inspection, rental value was fixed and tax was levied in two separate assessments. Trial Court held that sufficient opportunity was given to the Plaintiff and no arbitrariness or illegality in the assignment of new Door Nos. and assessment. Trial Court further held that against the orders of Taxation Appellate Committee as contemplated under Section 89(3) of the Act, no appeal was preferred by the Plaintiff. 9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suits, Plaintiff filed A.S.Nos.15/2004 and 16/2004 respectively before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram. Holding that before fixing the rental value and levying the tax, sufficient opportunity was given to the Plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court held that the Revision and Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff for Door Nos.30A/3 and 30B/5, tax was considerably reduced. Confirming the findings of the trial court, lower Appellate Court also held that as contemplated under Sec.89(3) of the Act, Plaintiff ought to have preferred appeal before the District Court. .10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, Plaintiff has filed these Second Appeals. Confirming the findings of the trial court, lower Appellate Court also held that as contemplated under Sec.89(3) of the Act, Plaintiff ought to have preferred appeal before the District Court. .10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, Plaintiff has filed these Second Appeals. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following common substantial question of law was framed for consideration:- ."Whether the Courts below have erred in non-suiting the plaintiff for non-filing of an appeal under Section 89 of the District Municipalities Act, especially when the mandatory procedures contemplated under Section 81 of the Act were not followed?" 11. Mr. D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that levying tax for two different assessments and the increase was arbitrary and illegal and Respondent-Municipality has not followed the mandatory procedure. It was mainly argued that after the first floor was renovated/reconstructed, without proper notice new Door Nos. were assigned as 30A/3 and 30B/5 and new assessment No.784 and 785 were given. It was further argued that since there was violation of principles of natural justice, Plaintiff cannot be non-suited merely on the ground that as against the order of Taxation Appellate Committee, Plaintiff has not approached the District Court. 12. Taking me through the Typed set of papers and the reasonings of the trial court, Mr.N.Subbarayalu, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that Plaintiff has filed both Revision and Appeal against both the assessments and only after considering his objection in the Revision and Appeal, the tax was considerably reduced to Rs.484/-for half yearly tax in respect of Assessment No.784 for Door No.30A/3 and Rs.544/- in respect of Assessment No.785 for Door No.30B/5. 13. Before demolition and reconstruction of the premises in Olimohammedpet Road, there were two assessments – Assessment Nos.111 and 112, one for the ground floor and another for the first floor. After reconstruction, for the ground floor there were two assessments in Assessment Nos.111 and 112 and for the first floor, there were two assessments in Assessment Nos.784 and 785. Thus after reconstruction, totally there were four assessments. Plaintiff challenges Assessment No.784 [Door Nos.30A/3] and Assessment No.785 [Door No.30B/5]. Case of Plaintiff is that since the first floor was in a dilapidated condition, it was reconstructed and while so, levy of tax in two assessments is illegal and arbitrary. .14. Thus after reconstruction, totally there were four assessments. Plaintiff challenges Assessment No.784 [Door Nos.30A/3] and Assessment No.785 [Door No.30B/5]. Case of Plaintiff is that since the first floor was in a dilapidated condition, it was reconstructed and while so, levy of tax in two assessments is illegal and arbitrary. .14. It is pertinent to note that the suits arise not out of general revision of tax, but it is the case of new assessment after new construction. Grievance of the Plaintiff is that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the Plaintiff before assigning two Door Numbers and levying the tax. Further grievance of the Plaintiff is that without proper inspection and enquiry, assessment was made. In so far as Door No.30A/3 – 720 sq.ft., the annual value was fixed at Rs.7258/- and the rental value was fixed at Rs.5443/- and assessment was arrived at Rs.928/- (in Assessment No.784). On revision, it was reduced to Rs.484/-. In so far as Door No.30B/5 – 400 sq.ft., the annual value was fixed at Rs.7776/- and the rental value was fixed at Rs.6047/- and assessment was arrived at Rs.1031/- (in Assessment No.785). On revision, the same was reduced to Rs.544/-. 15. In her evidence, DW1-Revenue Inspector has clearly stated that before levying new assessment, premises was inspected and only after due enquiry, rental value was fixed and assessment made. Admittedly, Plaintiff has preferred Revision and Appeal challenging levy of tax for Door Nos.30A/3 and 30B/5. In the Revision, the assessment was reduced from Rs.928/- to Rs.484/- for Door No.30A/3 and from Rs.1031/- to Rs.544/- for Door No.30B/5. 16. After revision, Plaintiff has also preferred Appeal before the Taxation Appellate Committee. If the Plaintiff was further aggrieved by the order of Taxation Appellate Committee, as contemplated under Sec.89(3) of District Municipalities Act, Plaintiff ought to have preferred an appeal before the District Court. Having exhausted the statutory remedies by filing Revision and Appeal, it is not open to the Plaintiff to file Civil suit alleging that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity and there was violation of principles of natural justice. 117. As pointed out earlier, for ground floor Door Nos.30A/2 and 30B/4, two assessments were made in Assessment Nos.111 and 112. For residential portion - Door No.39A/2 (Assessment No.111) initially half yearly tax was Rs.96/- which was enhanced to Rs.2651/-. 117. As pointed out earlier, for ground floor Door Nos.30A/2 and 30B/4, two assessments were made in Assessment Nos.111 and 112. For residential portion - Door No.39A/2 (Assessment No.111) initially half yearly tax was Rs.96/- which was enhanced to Rs.2651/-. In the revision, it was reduced to Rs.2558/- and in the Appeal, it was further reduced to Rs.1407/-. In so far as non-residential portion – Door No.30B/4 (Assessment No.112), initial tax was Rs.636/- which was enhanced to Rs.1036/-. Even though, for non-residential portion in the ground floor (Door No.30B/4) tax was increased, Plaintiff has not preferred any appeal. When the Plaintiff was satisfied as to the compliance of procedural formalities in respect of ground floor Door No.30B/4, grievance of the Plaintiff as to non-compliance of procedural formalities in respect of other Door Nos. is unacceptable. 118. In her evidence, DW1 has categorically stated that in all the proceedings, Plaintiff has personally appeared and due enquiry was held and only after compliance with the procedures, the tax was levied. Pointing out exhaustion of statutory remedies by filing of Revision and Appeal, Courts below rightly held that the suits filed by the Plaintiff are not maintainable. Having challenged the assessment as per the statutory provisions, Plaintiff cannot further challenge the same. It is very unfortunate that even though the tax levied was considerably reduced in the Revision and Appeal, Plaintiff fought out the litigation for more than 7 years. While dealing with the cases challenging levy of tax, Courts cannot ignore the civic responsibilities of the Municipality/Panchayat. 119. In a catena of decisions, Supreme Court has held that as general rule, where the findings of the Courts below based on evidence and when the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact, High Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 CPC. [See 2009 (4) LW 125 (Narayanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others]. 120. S.A.No.4/2007: In the result, the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.15/2004 dated 30.06.2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram (arising out of the Judgment in O.S.No.63/2002 dated 210. 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram) is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. 121. 120. S.A.No.4/2007: In the result, the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.15/2004 dated 30.06.2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram (arising out of the Judgment in O.S.No.63/2002 dated 210. 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram) is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. 121. S.A.No.5/2007: In the result, the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.16/2004 dated 30.06.2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram (arising out of the Judgment in O.S.No.65/2002 dated 210. 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram) is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. . Plaintiff is directed to pay the arrears of tax within a period of four weeks from the date of this Judgment failing which the Respondent-Municipality is at liberty to proceed against the Plaintiff in accordance with law. . It is further made clear that the Respondent-Municipality is at liberty to modify/enhance the property tax for Plaintiffs property on par with other buildings in accordance with law.