JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - The Food Corporation of India has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.3872 of 1991) filed by the appellant for quashing of the order of assessment dated 31.03.1987 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent-Committee and order dated 16.08.1989 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the said assessment, has been dismissed. 2. Though this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application (CM No.1431 of 2012) for condonation of 3 days delay in filing the appeal, yet, without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the order of assessment as well as the order of the Appellate Authority, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. 4. In this case, the godown constructed by the appellant for storage of the food was assessed to house tax. The annual rental value of the said godown was assessed @ 10 paise per bag per month. The said assessment remained valid for five years, i.e., up to the year 1986-87. Thereafter, as per Section 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the revision of the assessment list was made after giving notice to the appellant. The appellant-Corporation filed objections to the proposal of re-assessment and then after considering its objections and hearing the appellant, the annual rental value was fixed @ 16 paise per bag per month by the respondent-Committee vide order dated 31.03.1987 (Annexure P-3). 5. The appellant challenged the said order by filing the civil suit which was dismissed on 19.10.1988 (Annexure R-1). The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 7.4.1989 (Annexure R-2). 5. The appellant challenged the said order by filing the civil suit which was dismissed on 19.10.1988 (Annexure R-1). The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 7.4.1989 (Annexure R-2). The appellant also challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.03.1987 by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.08.1989 (Annexure P-5), while observing as under:- “I have heard both the counsel at length and gone through the arguments carefully and come to the conclusion that the present appeal had been preferred against the order dated 31.03.1987 by F.C.I. even after it had acted upon this order and had deposited the house tax assessed for one year. FCI had tried to agitate an order which already stands implemented between the parties on the plea of adoption of resolution for the house tax assessed for the year 1988-89. Moreover, FCI had already agitated against the order dated 31.03.1987 passed by Municipal Committee, Kotkapura in the Civil Court and had lost the same in the lower court as well as in the appeal in the court of Addl. District Judge, Faridkot. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed.” 6. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on September 12, 2011. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when no alteration or addition was made in the godown owned by the appellant since its last assessment, therefore, while revising the assessment, the rental value could not be increased as the annual rental value was to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act which does not permit the revision of the rent without there being any addition or alteration. However, he is not disputing the right of the respondent-Committee to revise the assessment list. In the present case, the revision of the assessment list was based on the rental value, and on increase of the rent, the annual rental value was increased and assessed on the basis of 16 paise instead of 10 paise per bag per month, as earlier done. After considering all the objections raised by the appellant, the said assessment was upheld by the Civil Court. After considering all the objections raised by the appellant, the said assessment was upheld by the Civil Court. After losing the case in the Civil Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. In the present case the assessment was revised after hearing the appellant and on the basis of increase in the rent. In our opinion, the revision of the assessment list on the ground of increase of annual rental value is fully justified and in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessment had already been upheld by the Civil Court, we do not find any ground to interfere in the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.