JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners purchased 1 kanal 5 marlas land situated in Barnala for Rs.4.00 lacs. They have let out this land to one M/s Bansal Automobiles through a registered lease deed on 19.8.2004 @ Rs.24,000/- per annum for a period of 33 years. The tenants were to themselves construct any building etc. on the property. 2. In the year 2008, the respondents issued notice to the petitioners proposing to impose house tax on the property. The petitioners filed their objections against the imposition of the proposed house tax on the ground that it is required to be assessed for tax under Section 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short “the Act”). The House Tax Sub Committee of the respondents decided to impose house tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act on 17.6.2010. The registered lease deed executed by the petitioners was ignored as it was found to have been let out within the family itself. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Collector on 1.6.2012 and now the petitioners have approached this court through the present writ petition. 3. The first grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-Municipal Committee is not justified in assessing the house tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. As per this section, where the land or building is occupied by the owner, then the house tax is to be assessed on the annual value with five per cent on the sum obtained by adding the present market value of the land and estimated cost of erecting the building less ten per cent depreciation. Where the building is let out, then the house tax is to be on the annual value as assessed in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, which provides that in case of land or building which is in occupation of a tenant, the gross annual rent at which the land or building has actually been let out which ofcourse is with certain provisos. 4. The view which has been formed by the House Tax Sub Committee of the Municipal Council could not be disputed in facts. Concededly, the petitioners have let out this plot to a firm within the family. That being the position, the possibility that this has been done to avoid house tax being assessed properly cannot be ruled out. 5. 4. The view which has been formed by the House Tax Sub Committee of the Municipal Council could not be disputed in facts. Concededly, the petitioners have let out this plot to a firm within the family. That being the position, the possibility that this has been done to avoid house tax being assessed properly cannot be ruled out. 5. The second submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the plot was purchased for a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs, but now as per the Collector’s rate, the annual value has been assessed as Rs.51.00 lacs, is exorbitant. This is a purely factual issue. The petitioners have based this claim entirely on the basis of their own sale deed. The assessment for the tax was done in the year 2008, whereas the plot was purchased in 2004. Obviously, the value of the plots would have increased. To determine the quantum of increase would not be a proper or appropriate remedy. No material has been pointed out before me to show that the assessment as done suffers for want of jurisdiction or other procedural error, which may call for any interference. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.