JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant – Municipal Committee, Patiala (now Municipal Corporation, Patiala) against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby judgment and decree dated 05.04.1999 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala has been set aside and suit of the respondent- plaintiff for declaration has been decreed. 2. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of first instance. 3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that assessment and demand of Rs.2127/- on account of house tax in respect of shop bearing unit No. 3363/3, situated at Gur Mandi, Patiala for the year 1994-95 or onwards is illegal, null and void and against the rules and regulations and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding further with the notice and recovering the amount from the plaintiff. It has been alleged that father of the plaintiff Sh. Pannu Ram is owner of Karyana Shop and plaintiff is running the said shop under authority and control of his father. Uptill the assessment year 1994-95 the house-tax of the property in question has been assessed to the tune of Rs.202.50 in the name of father of the plaintiff and house tax upto the assessment year 1994-95 has been duly deposited with the Municipal Committee, Patiala. Plaintiff received an assessment notice under Sections 65/67 of the Punjab Municipal Act on 22.11.1994 in which the rental value of the property in question has been assessed to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. Defendant Committee has issued a demand notice dated 17.04.1995 on account of the house tax of the property in question for the assessment year 1994-95 in the name of the plaintiff and has demanded Rs.2127/- as house tax which is illegal. 4. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement. It has been alleged that in response to the notice under Sections 65/67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the plaintiff filed the objections on 29.11.1994 and the assessment order has been passed by the defendant on 03.02.1995 after following the proper procedure under the Punjab Municipal Act. 4. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement. It has been alleged that in response to the notice under Sections 65/67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the plaintiff filed the objections on 29.11.1994 and the assessment order has been passed by the defendant on 03.02.1995 after following the proper procedure under the Punjab Municipal Act. The house tax is being recovered as per the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. The demand of the house tax is legal. Rest of the allegations of the plaint were denied. 5. Plaintiff filed replication denying the averments in the plaint and reiterating the averments in the plaint. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 4. Relief.” 7. The Court of first instance after perusal of the pleadings led by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 05.04.1999. Against that, plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2002 and judgment and decree passed by Court of first instance has been set aside and suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. Hence, this second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Court of first instance on the basis of decision in C.W.P. No. 1801 of 1995 titled as “Model Town Residents Association, Patiala vs. State of Punjab and another”, decided on 27.08.2001. The said judgment of this Court has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(8aa) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which were declared unconstitutional, have been held to be valid. The said judgment of this Court has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(8aa) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which were declared unconstitutional, have been held to be valid. Since, the decision of the lower appellate Court was based upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1801 of 1995, which has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this second appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Patiala vs. Model Town Residents Association and others, [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2368 (SC) : 2007(3) Law Herald (SC) 2429] : 2007(4) CCC 1 and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is perverse and is not sustainable. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent states that judgment of the lower appellate Court is legal and valid. 11. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and pleadings of parties, this Court is of the view that following substantial question of law arises in the appeal which need consideration:- “Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is perverse as the same was passed on the decision of this Court in CWP No. 1801 of 1995, which has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(8aa) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 have been held to be valid?” 13. Admittedly, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment of Court of first instance on the basis of decision of Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1801 of 1995 whereby provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(8aa) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 have been declared ultra virus. The said judgment has been reversed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said provisions have been held to be valid. 14. In view of fact that assessment carried out by the Municipal Committee, Patiala is legal and valid and judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is not sustainable and the matter is squarely covered by a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Model Town Residents Association’s case (supra), the substantial question of law raised above is, thus, answered in affirmative. 15. No other point has been urged. 16. 15. No other point has been urged. 16. In view of above, instant second appeal is allowed, judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and findings recorded by the Court of first instance are restored. Decree-sheet be prepared. 17. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————