ORDER Viney Mittal, J. 1. The prayer made in the application is allowed. The present petition is treated to be a petition filed under section 392 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. 2. I.A. No. 10677/2008 is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner-Sitaram (since dead and now represented by his L.Rs.) is aggrieved against an order dated March 5, 2004 passed by the learned additional District Judge, whereby an order dated March 17, 2002, passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Indore has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed. 3. The skeletal facts arising out of the controversy indicated that the petitioner had filed an application before the competent authority of the Indore Municipal Corporation to the effect that earlier there used to be a tenant over some portion of the premises in question and as a landlord, he was receiving rent form the said tenant. Later on the aforesaid tenant had vacated the premises, therefore the owner requested the corporation to reassess the valuation for the purposes of property tax by reducing the same. The aforesaid request made by the house owner was considered by the corporation and vide order dated March 17, 2002 rather than reducing the aforesaid valuation, the valuation was ordered to be enhanced. The house owner felt aggrieved against the aforesaid order and filled an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the house owner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated March 5, 2004. 4. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that neither the competent authority of the corporation, while passing the order dated March 17, 2002, nor the appellate Authority while passing the order dated March 5, 2004, have taken into consideration the real controversy between the parties. As a matter of fact, according to the learned counsel, earlier some income from the house property was derived by the house owner, but later on, the tenant having quit the premises, the house became under the self occupation of the owner. In these circumstances, the valuation was required to be reassessed, by reducing the income, which the house owner was getting form the tenant. In these circumstances, the valuation was required to be reassessed, by reducing the income, which the house owner was getting form the tenant. The learned counsel points out that the aforesaid matter has not at all been taken in to consideration by the competent authority or the Appellate Authority, in correct perspective. 5. Taking in to consideration the aforesaid grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am satisfied that the matter requires to be re-adjudicated by the competent authority of the corporation, in as much as, the real controversy raised by the house owner seems to have not been adverted to correctly by the said authority. A similar contention also raised by the petitioner, before the appellate authority, in the appeal filed by the house owner, has been rejected. 6. In these circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the controversy, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition and set aside the order dated March 17, 2002 passed by the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation as well as the order dated March 5, 2004, passed by the appellate authority. The request letter made by the petitioner before the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation shall stand revived to its original number and shall be decided afresh by the competent authority, in accordance with law. 7. Since the matter has remained pending for a considerable period of time and subsequent events might have occurred in the meantime, would be open to the house owner to file further material on record, if so desired. 8. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation on October, 4, 2010. C.C. as per rules.