Judgment :- The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the respondent dated 01.08.2001 in Special Notice No.9014. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the property situated in Door No.67/1 Kosa annamalai street of Gudiayatham Municipality belongs to the petitioner. A special notice was issued by the first respondent revising the property tax with effect from 01.04.1977. According to the petitioner the said notice has been issued enhancing the property tax from Rs. 8,803/- to 52,406/- unilaterally without any basis and with retrospective effect. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent has not followed the provisions contained under Sections 82 to 84 of the District Municipality Act, before arriving at the property tax to be paid by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in any case the valuation will have to be fixed uniformly in consonance with the property tax fixed in respect of the other similarly placed buildings under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings will have to be set aside. 3. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 1 CTC 791 – K.R.Abirami Vs. The Kumbakonam Municipality, rep. by its Executive Authority, The Commissioner, Dr. Muthy Road, Kumbakonam Town, 2008 2 LW 374 – Kalairasi Vs. Thanjavur Muncipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Gandhiji Road, Thanjavur, 1994 – Writ L.R.805 - Dindigul Anna District Tax Payers Sangam etc. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu etc., 1992 2 MLJ 299 - Chellammal Vs. Alandur Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, 1993 (2) MLJ – 262 - Magdoom Sheriff alias Sultan Sheriff Vs. Kancheepuram Municipality by its Commissioner, Kancheepuram and 1970 (2) SCC - 803 – THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. THE GUNTUR TOWN RATE PAYERS ASSOCIATION ETC., and contended that the impugned notice will have set aside for not following the provisions of the Rent Control Act as well as the provisions of the District Municipality Act, particularly with reference to sections 82 to 84 of the said Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the rent fixed between landlord and tenant cannot be the basis and only the fair rent as provided under the Rent Control Act alone will have to be the basis for fixing the property tax. The learned counsel also submitted that the rent fixed between landlord and tenant cannot be the basis and only the fair rent as provided under the Rent Control Act alone will have to be the basis for fixing the property tax. Therefore, the landlord prayed for the writ petition to be allowed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the impugned notice has been issued based upon the information obtained from the second respondent and that only based upon the rent deed obtained from the second respondent the property tax has been fixed. The objection filed by the petitioner could not be considered because it was received beyond the period of limitation and hence, the learned counsel for the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the present case on hand, the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several issues before this Court. It is seen from the impugned notice that a demand has been made for revised property tax with effect from 01.04.1997. The said demand has been made based upon the information obtained from the second respondent, who was the tenant at the relief point of time. The petitioners objection was not considered by the second respondent on the sole ground that it was received belatedly. However, there is no reference about the date on which the notice has been served on the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the notice has been sent in a proper manner within the period of limitation. Hence, taking into consideration the facts of the case and also various issues involved herein, this Court is of the opinion that the first respondent will have to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 18.12.2001 which was sent by way of legal notice and consider the same on merits, in accordance with law without reference to the question of limitation. The respondent shall also consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2001 as well, which was received by the first respondent along with the legal notice to 18.12.2001. The first respondent shall consider the above said representations and objections on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall consider the above said representations and objections on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till such order is passed, the first respondent shall not proceed with the demand made in the impugned notice. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.