Judgment :- This revision petition filed by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.12.2005, passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore in CMA.No.91 of 2004. 2. The respondents 1&3 are the assessees and the property in question is a cinema theater complex in Coimbatore city, in this order they shall be referred to as the 'assessee'. The second respondent is the Taxation Appeal Tribunal, which is the first Appellate Authority against an order of assessment of property tax, exercising powers under Section 169G of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The Corporation is aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2005, passed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore in an appeal filed by the assessee in CMA.No.91 of 2004, whereby the Principal District Court set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Corporation as well as the Appellate Tribunal, directing that the property in question shall be assessed to property tax based upon the capital value and while making the assessment, the carpet area of the property has to be taken into consideration and not the plinth area. The Corporation is aggrieved by such finding by the Principal District Court and they had challenged the same in this revision. 4. Before, I examine the correctness of the decision of the order impugned, it would be necessary to state certain facts as the case appears to have had a chequered history. 5. The property was assessed to property tax by the Commissioner of the Corporation from 1981. The assessees being aggrieved by such assessment, preferred an appeal to the Taxation Appeal Committee. The Committee upheld the decision of the Commissioner by stating that the property being a newly constructed theater complex was not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act and therefore, its annual rental value could not be adopted for assessing the property tax. The assessees being aggrieved by such assessment, preferred an appeal to the Taxation Appeal Committee. The Committee upheld the decision of the Commissioner by stating that the property being a newly constructed theater complex was not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act and therefore, its annual rental value could not be adopted for assessing the property tax. Further, the Committee held that the theater complex with its building, accessories and fittings cannot possibly be leased out to a single individual because it would involve huge expenditure and investment and therefore, there was a remote possibility of leasing out the entire theater complex to a single individual or an association of persons and therefore, the annual rental value cannot be the basis for assessing the property tax. The committee further held if there was a lease of the theater complex, it would not be only for the building, but along with furnitures and fixtures and therefore, it would not be a safe basis because it is very difficult to ascertain the annual rental value for the building alone as it was a theater complex. Thus the committee held that the cinema theater complex with all its accessories cannot be ordinarily let out. The decision of the committee was challenged before the District Court, Coimbatore which reversed the findings of the committee and held that the primary and principle basis for assessment under Section 122(2) of the Act was the rental value and only in cases where a building belonged to a class of buildings not ordinarily let out then an alternative method was prescribed and the assessing authority has to first determine whether the building belonged to a class of building not ordinarily let out and that a theater complex could be let out or leased as such and the rental income therefore is easily and readily ascertainable. 6. The Corporation challenged the decision of the District Court dated 15.06.1986 in CMA.No.66 of 1985, by filing a revision before this Court in CRP.No.4038 of 1986. This Court by judgment dated 01.09.1995 (1996-1-MLJ-112, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation vs K.G.Arts Centre Private Limited) by applying the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Singanallur Municipality vs. Vasantha Mills Ltd 1977-1-MLJ-163, held that the cinema theater in question belonging to the assessing is liable to be assessed under the method applicable to a ?class of buildings not ordinarily let? i.e.; by adopting the capital value method and to that extent the order of the District Court was set aside. Further this Court held that the order of the District Court is also liable to be set aside on account of the exercise undertaken by the Court to determine the annual value as also the quantum of house or property tax levyable and at the most the District Court, if at all, should have only declared the position regarding the correct method to be adopted and left for consideration regarding the quantum by a fresh determination by the Commissioner by following the guidelines for the same and the District Court ought not to have usurped, the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in that regard. Not satisfied with the decision of this Court, the assessee preferred appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.31 of 1996. As no stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner re-adjudicated the quantum of assessment and subsequently stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subject to deposit of Rs.18,52,708/- being 50% of the amount demanded from the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the scope of Section 122 of the Act, which deals with the method of assessment of property tax, held that the Commissioner adopted the capital valuation method without setting out reasons as to why he could not adopt the method of annual rental value and therefore, on that count alone, the order of the Commissioner and all proceedings subsequent thereto were set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the reasoning of the Taxation Appellate Committee cannot be said to be satisfactory and it is based on ipsi-dixit as there was no material based on which such conclusion was reached and further held the learned Single Judge of this Court appears to have not appreciated that there can be a vast difference between a mill and a cinema theater and there was no basis for making no distinction between the two. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by order dated 08.11.2000, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 122 of the Act and decide whether or not the theater complex belongs to a class of building which is not ordinarily let out and then proceed to make the assessment accordingly. Liberty was granted to the assessee as well as the corporation to place before the Commissioner all relevant materials in this behalf and the Commissioner shall consider such materials and the order which he shall pass, shall reflect his opinion based all such materials. It was further ordered that in the event the order of assessment is not passed within eight weeks, the amount deposited shall be refunded and if the order is passed within the time, the deposit amount shall be set off against the demand. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- The ordinary method of assessment of property tax under Section 122 of the Act is on the basis of the annual rental value thereof. It is only when, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the buildnig being assessed belongs to a class of buildings which are not ordinarily let that the annual value thereof may be determined on the basis of the capital value thereof. It is therefore, for the Commissioner to come to the opinion that the building in relation to which he is assessing property tax belongs to a class of buildings which is not ordinarily let? only then can he adopt the capital valuation method. In coming to such an opinion, necessarily, the Commissioner must examine all relevant material and he must set out in his order, however brieftly, why he has reached that opinion. It is an admitted position that in the case before us the Commissioner adopted the capital valuation method without so much as stating in his order that he was of the opinion that he could not adopt the method of the annual rental value because the theatre complex belonged to a class of buildings which was not ordinarily let. In our view, therefore, on that count alone, the order of the Commissioner and all proceedings subsequent thereto must stand set aside. Even the reasoning of the committee cannot be said to be satisfactory. It is based on ipse dixit. There was before it no material upon which it could conclude, one way or the other, that a theatre or a theatre complex was not ordinarily let out. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was based on the decision of the Full Bench of that Court. It is based on ipse dixit. There was before it no material upon which it could conclude, one way or the other, that a theatre or a theatre complex was not ordinarily let out. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was based on the decision of the Full Bench of that Court. The learned Judge appears not to have appreciated that there can be a vast difference between a mill and a cinema theatre; there was no basis for making no distinction between the two and assuming that as a mill was not ordinarily let out so also a cinema theatre was not ordinarily let out. We think, in the circumstances, that the assessment order made by the commissioner and all orders in the proceedings subsequent thereto must be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner to decide, in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 122, whetehr or not the theatre complex belongs to a class fo buildigns which is not ordinarily let out and then proceed to make an assessment accordingly. Both the appellant and the respondent shall be entiteld to place before the Commissioner all relevant material in this behalf. The commissioner shall consider such material and the order that he makes shall reflect his opinion based thereon. The appeal is allowed. The matter shall stand remitted to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, to act in the manner aforestated. In the event that he does not make an order of assessment within a period of eight weeks from today, the amount of Rs.18,52,708/- deposited by the appellant with him as aforestated shall be forthwith refunded. If, on the other hand, the order is passed, the amount, to the extent necessary, shall be set off against the demand. The respondent shall pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal. 7. It appears that an order of assessment, pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was passed by the Commissioner by adopting the capital value method and calculated the arrears of property tax payable from 01.10.1981 to 31.03.2001 at Rs.57,92,623/-. Aggrieved by such order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal in TAT No.398 of 2001. The Tribunal by its order dated 16.03.2004, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by such order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal in TAT No.398 of 2001. The Tribunal by its order dated 16.03.2004, dismissed the appeal. As against the order of dismissal, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore in CMA.No.91 of 2004. During the pendency of the appeal, a joint memo was filed by the parties namely, the assessee and the corporation, both agreeing that the capital value method of assessment can be followed. Therefore, the controversy as to whether annual rental value method should be adopted or the capital value method should be adopted was set at rest by virtue of the joint memo dated 26.12.2005. The Principal District Court after recording the memo proceeded further and held that while assessing the property tax, the carpet area of the building has to be applied instead of plinth area. This order dated 28.12.2005, is impugned in this revision. 8. I have heard Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the Corporation and Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for the assessee and carefully considered the materials on record. 9. Chapter V of the Act deals with 'taxation'. In terms of Section 117(a) property tax is one of the taxes levyable by the council of the corporation. Section 122 of the Act deals with the method of assessment of property tax and the same is extracted below:- 122. Method of assessment of property tax:-(1) every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. Method of assessment of property tax:-(1) every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. (2) the annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction, in the case of buildings, often per cent, of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and the adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto; and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever, Provided that:- (a) in the case of (i)any State Government or railway building, or (ii)any building of a class not ordinarily let the gross annual value of which cannot, in the opinion of the commissioner, be estimated the annual value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per centum of the total of the estimated market value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per centum of such costs; (b) in calculating the value of any land or building, the value of any plant or machinery, on such land or in such building shall be excluded, but all fixtures including lifts and electric and other fittings which add to the convenience of the building shall be valued, subject in the case of a lift to such deduction from the valuation as may be prescribed by the council on account of the cost of repairs to maintenance of and attendance on, such lift, Provided further that where the annual value of any land or building is attributable partly to the use of such land or building or any portion thereof for the display of any advertisement or advertisements and tax is levied under this Act in respect of such advertisement or advertisements the annual value of such land or building for the purpose of assessing the property tax thereon shall be ascertained as if such land, building or portion is not used for the display of such advertisement or advertisements. (3) The Government shall have power to make rules regarding the manner in which, the person or by persons by whom and the intervals at which, the value of the land, the present cost of erecting the building and the amount to be deducted for depreciation, shall be estimated or revised, in any case or class of cases to which clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) applies, and they may, by such rules, restrict or modify the application of the provisions contained in Schedule II to such case or class of cases. 10. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 122, the annual value of the lands and building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may be reasonably be expected to let out, less a deduction in the case of buildings, of 10% of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and the adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance. In terms of clause a(ii) of the proviso, if in the opinion of the Commissioner, if a building falls within class of building not capable of being ordinarily let out, the annual value of such premises shall be deemed to be 6% of the total of the estimated market value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than 10% of such cost. Therefore, in terms of the said provision if in the opinion of the Commissioner that the building cannot be ordinarily let out, then the annual value shall be calculated as provided under Section 122(2) based on the capital value of the land and estimated cost of erecting the building less depreciation, which shall not be less than 10% of such cost. 11. Though the Commissioner assessed the property tax by adopting the capital value method, the assessee contested the same by filing an appeal before the Taxation Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed and they preferred further appeal before the Principal District Court. The controversy was resolved pending appeal before the District Court and a joint memo was filed where the assessee and the corporation agreed to adopt the capital value method for assessing the property tax. The appeal was dismissed and they preferred further appeal before the Principal District Court. The controversy was resolved pending appeal before the District Court and a joint memo was filed where the assessee and the corporation agreed to adopt the capital value method for assessing the property tax. The grievance of the corporation is that the Principal District Court having recorded the joint memo proceeded further and held that while assessing the property by adopting the capital value method, the carpet area of the building alone has to be reckoned instead of the plinth area. Firstly, it has to be noted that only two points were framed by the Principal District Court for determination in the appeal, which reads as follows:- (1) Whether capital value method is to be adopted for assessing the property tax of the said K.G.Theatre complex as per Section 122 of the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Act 1981? (2) Whether the order in T.A.T.No.398 of 2002, dated 16.03.2004, passed by the Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore is correct one? 12. So far as question No.1(supra), the Principal District Court need not have laboured much since both parties agreed to accept the capital value method. Consequently, question No.2 ought to have been either decided in favour of the corporation since capital value method was affirmed by the Taxation Appellate Tribunal or the Principal District Court could have recorded that in view of the agreement between the parties, that capital value method could be adopted, there would be no necessity to decide question No.2. Curiously enough the Principal District Court appears to have proceeded further to hear the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee stating that the plinth area should not be the basis for assessing the property tax and the carpet area should be taken into consideration. Though the corporation appears to have raised an objection stating that the assessment proceedings are exclusively within the domain of the Commissioner, the Principal District Court proceeded further to decide the matter. In my view the exercise done by the Principal District Court was wholly without jurisdiction, since there was no "lis" pending before it as to whether the plinth area has to be adopted or the carpet area has to be adopted for assessing the property tax. 13. In my view the exercise done by the Principal District Court was wholly without jurisdiction, since there was no "lis" pending before it as to whether the plinth area has to be adopted or the carpet area has to be adopted for assessing the property tax. 13. While remanding the matter to the Commissioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that only when, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the building being assessed belongs to a class of buildings which are not ordinarily let then alone the annual value may be determined on the basis of the capital value thereof. This direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was complied with by the Commissioner and by an elaborate order after considering all materials he opined that the building belongs a class of building which is not ordinarily let and he adopted the capital valuation method. Though the assessee questioned the correctness of such decision ultimately agreed to the same and filed the joint memo during the pendency of the appeal before the Principal District Court. The moot question would be as to what should have been done after the joint memo dated 26.12.2005. The answer lies in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation. The directive issued to the Commissioner was to strictly comply the provisions of Section 122 thereby the Commissioner has to first decide whether or not the theater complex belongs to a class of building which is not ordinarily let out. Thereafter, the Commissioner should proceed to make an assessment accordingly. This assessment could not have been done by the Principal District Court and should have been left to the assessing authority to carry out such exercise. Therefore, the Principal District Court usurped the powers of the assessing authority which was wholly beyond its jurisdiction. Infact in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Principal District Court, the assessee had challenged the order of the appellate Tribunal only on the ground that the capital value method of assessment could not have been adopted and the annual rental value method alone should have been followed. Infact in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Principal District Court, the assessee had challenged the order of the appellate Tribunal only on the ground that the capital value method of assessment could not have been adopted and the annual rental value method alone should have been followed. Further it has been contended that even in the matter of computation by the capital value method, the Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal erroneously adopted the figures shown in the balance sheet of the assessee as at 30.06.1982 as the capital value, without taking into account, the depreciation and the without segregating the items which the cumulative figure of fixed assets represent. Therefore, the questions framed by the Principal District Court was restricted to only such contention as to whether capital value method is to be adopted. Hence, the Principal District Court ought to have refrained from encroaching upon the territory of the assessing authority. For the purpose of deciding as to the amount of tax payable the pre-requisite would be that the assessee should file a return and based on such return the Commissioner should have assessed the tax. Therefore, the order passed by the Principal District Court suffers from error of jurisdiction. 14. For all the above reasons, the order passed by the Principal District Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the corporation that the arrears of property tax is more than Rs.1 crore and the assessee after making the deposit of Rs.18,52,708/-, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been remitting meager amount of tax on their own accord. The learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee have been periodically remitting the property tax based on the original assessment and from 2000 till date a sum of Rs.46,31,484/-has been remitted as property tax. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.1 of 2012, the details of such payments made during the pendency have been stated. From the affidavit it is seen that after the payment made pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a payment of Rs.7,00,000/- has been made by cheque dated 24.09.2003. Thereafter no amount is shown to have been remitted for nearly five years and the next payment is said to have been made by cheque dated 31.03.2008, for Rs.7,24,712/-. From the affidavit it is seen that after the payment made pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a payment of Rs.7,00,000/- has been made by cheque dated 24.09.2003. Thereafter no amount is shown to have been remitted for nearly five years and the next payment is said to have been made by cheque dated 31.03.2008, for Rs.7,24,712/-. Thereafter, the assessee has paid Rs.1,69,258/-by cheques dated 16.12.2008, 15.03.2009, 04.11.2009, 20.03.2010, 10.11.2010, 05.04.2011, 17.11.2011 and 19.03.2012. It is not known as to on what basis the assessee has been remitting Rs.1,69,258/- at regular intervals. Though the assessee claims that from the year 2000, they have remitted Rs.46,31,484/-, the said amount includes the amount paid as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if that amount is deducted the assessee in all these 12 years has paid Rs.27,78,776/- as property tax. Since it is represented that the assessee has been availing all the facilities provided by the Corporation, this Court deems it appropriate that a condition should be imposed on the assessee to enable them to go before the Commissioner and file their return of property tax assessment. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the assessee is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty lakhs only), this payment and all earlier payments made by the assessee during the pendency of the proceedings shall be adjusted as against the property tax payable by the assessee after the fresh order of assessment is passed by the Commissioner. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the Principal District Court in CMA.No.91 of 2004, dated 28.12.2005, is set aside with regard to the finding that the property tax shall be assessed based on the carpet area subject to the following directions:- (i) The assessee shall pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards property tax within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Along with the above remittance of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), the assessee shall file a return for the said land and building (theatre complex) containing details as prescribed under the Act for assessment of the property tax as per the capital value method. (ii) Along with the above remittance of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), the assessee shall file a return for the said land and building (theatre complex) containing details as prescribed under the Act for assessment of the property tax as per the capital value method. (iii) On receipt of such return, the Commissioner or any person authorised by him shall cause an inspection to be made on the premises and based on such inspection and after taking into consideration the return filed by the assessee shall proceed to assess the property tax of the land and building. (iv) Copy of such assessment proceedings which is in the nature of a provisional assessment shall be furnished to the assessee and the assessee shall be entitled to submit their objections in writing. (v) After receipt of the objections, the Commissioner shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order assessing the land and building in question for property tax. (vi) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the return directed to be filed by the assessee in para (ii) supra. 16. The Civil Revision petition is allowed with the above conditions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.