ORDER : 1. W.P.No.2465 of 2012 has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent comprised in its Resolution No.21 dated 28.05.2008 and the consequential revision notices bearing Nos.47505 and Na.Ka.No.15307/2009/Ke.Ce.4 both dated 09.04.2010 in respect of the property tax payable on the petitioner's property situated at No.1075 & 1076 at Avinashi Road, Coimbatore and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981. 2. CRP (NPD) No.531 of 2006 has been filed calling for the records in CMA No.79 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the common order dated 02.06.2000 made in T.A.T.Case Nos.78 to 80 of 2000 on the file of the Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore and set aside the same. 3. CRP (NPD) Nos.1565 to 1567 of 2018 have been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2017 passed in Tax CMA Nos.85 to 87 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, upholding the fair and decreetal order dated 10.10.2003 passed by the Taxation Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore in T.A.T. Nos. 83 to 85 of 2000. 4. W.P.No.2465 of 2012 has been filed challenging the Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 and consequential revision notice dated 09.04.2010 in respect of the property tax payable on the petitioners property. The petitioner already challenged the very same Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 in W.P.No.5474 and 7116 of 2009 and also consequential demand notice dated 07.02.2009. This Court, by common Judgment dated 27.08.2009, disposed of all the writ petitions and upheld the validity of the impugned resolution. As per the Resolution, the respondent has proposed to enhance the property tax for residential building, factory building, commercial building and Government building at fixed percentage. Therefore, this Court held that the Resolution is only a cap on the limit upto which the revision can be made after following due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal and as such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. CRP No.531 of 2006 has been filed to assess the property tax for the respondent in the year 1996-1997. The same was challenged by the respondent before the Tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. CRP No.531 of 2006 has been filed to assess the property tax for the respondent in the year 1996-1997. The same was challenged by the respondent before the Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the Tax Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 02.06.2000, held that the original assessment of the year 1996-1997 was illegal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court, Coimbatore, and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. CRP Nos.1565 to 1567 of 2018 have been filed challenging the property tax assessment orders levied by the respondent before the Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore, on the ground that the value of the property of the petitioner should have been assessed in accordance with the principles of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. All the appeals were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeals by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the District Court, Coimbatore and all the appeals were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions. 7. All the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the assessment of property tax. The petitioner in CRP Nos.1565 to 1567 of 2018 is a Star Hotel located in the prime area of the Coimbatore City. The respondent assessed the property tax under the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, in the year 1996-1997 in Assessment Nos. 86399, 86451 and 89037 and the property tax was fixed at the rate of Rs.7,75,119/- for a half yearly. Thereafter, during the general revision of property tax as contemplated under the Act and Rules, the property tax for all the buildings was enhanced with effect from 01.10.1998. Accordingly, the property tax was revised for the petitioner at Rs.10,85,167/-. The petitioner was served notice with regard to the general revision and called upon them to raise their objections, if any. The petitioner did not submit any objections to the enhanced tax. 8. Accordingly, the demand notice were served upon the petitioner to remit the property tax at the enhanced rate. During April 1999, the petitioner challenged the assessment of property tax before the Tax Appellate Tribunal in TAT Case Nos.79 to 83. In which, TAT Case Nos.78 to 80 were challenged the original assessment of the property tax of the year 1996-1997 and the TAT Case Nos. During April 1999, the petitioner challenged the assessment of property tax before the Tax Appellate Tribunal in TAT Case Nos.79 to 83. In which, TAT Case Nos.78 to 80 were challenged the original assessment of the property tax of the year 1996-1997 and the TAT Case Nos. 81 to 83 challenged as against the general revision of property tax. The Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals in respect of TAT Case Nos. 78 to 80 and dismissed the TAT Case Nos.81 to 83. Aggrieved as against the dismissal of the tax appellate cases in TAT Case Nos. 81 to 83, they preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in CMA Nos.85 to 87. All the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred Civil Revision Petitions in CRP Nos.1562 to 1567 of 2018. 9. Likewise, the respondent aggrieved by the order passed in TAT Case Nos. 78 to 80, they preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the District Court, Coimbatore in CMA No. 79 of 2000 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 17.02.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.531 of 2006. 10. Mr.Sathish Parasuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the ground that the respondent/Corporation has no power to determine the procedure for assessment of property tax and as such, the entire assessment of property tax are liable to be set aside. The relevant property tax statute did not provide any procedure for the assessment of the property value, reference was to be heard to the relevant rent control legislation. Therefore, the respondent ought to have followed the Rent Control Act for assessment of property tax. There is no bar on relying upon the provisions of the Rent Control Act for the assessment of the monthly rental value for the purpose of Section 120 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India repeatedly held that the Rent Control Act is to be relied for the assessment of the monthly rental value in the absence of any other provisions. It would apply even the Rent Control Act does not apply to the building in question and further would apply where underlying statute does not provide mechanism for assessment of property tax. 11. It would apply even the Rent Control Act does not apply to the building in question and further would apply where underlying statute does not provide mechanism for assessment of property tax. 11. When there is a specific provision contained under Section 122 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 excluding the operation of the Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, determination of the annual value has to be valued in accordance with the Rent Control Act. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken a sustained view with regard to the determination of the annual value of the land or building for the purpose of determination of tax under the Municipal Acts and as such, it is divided into two groups. One group deals with the Municipal Laws of some States, which did not expressly exclude the application of the Rent Restrictions Act in the matter of determination of annual value of the building for the purpose of levying municipal taxes. The other group deals with the Municipal Laws expressly excluded the application of Rent Restriction Act in the matter of computation of annual value of the land or building. The Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 does not specifically exclude or bar the application of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Neither the provision under Section 122 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 nor under Schedule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as the method for determining the annual value of the building for the purpose of computing property tax has been laid out. 12. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following Judgments:- 1. 1970 (2) SCC 803 in the case of Guntur Muncipal Council Vs. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association. 2. 1998 (1) CTC 66 in the case of Ranipet Municipality Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan. 3. 1998 (4) SCC 368 in the case of East India Commercial Co. Pvt Ltd., Vs. Corporation of Calcutta. 4. 2002 (3) SCC 388 in the case of India Automobiles (1960) Ltd., Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and another. 5. 2008 (2) LW 2019 in the case of MKM Geeyavudeen Vs.The Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality. 13. M.Shamsheerkhan. 3. 1998 (4) SCC 368 in the case of East India Commercial Co. Pvt Ltd., Vs. Corporation of Calcutta. 4. 2002 (3) SCC 388 in the case of India Automobiles (1960) Ltd., Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and another. 5. 2008 (2) LW 2019 in the case of MKM Geeyavudeen Vs.The Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in CRP Nos.1565 to 1567 of 2018 and the petitioner in CRP No.531 of 2006 contended that the petitioner is a Star Hotel located in prime area of the Coimbatore City. The property tax was assessed under the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act adopting the method prescribed thereunder. While assessing the property tax, the relevant factors like total plinth area, location, type of construction and age of the building, usage and amenities and other facilities provided etc., have been taken into consideration. Originally, the petitioner building was assessed in the year 1996-1997 (2) in Assessment Nos. 86399, 86451 and 89037 together with all the three assessments, the property tax was fixed at Rs.7,75,119/- for a half yearly. In fact, the petitioner did not raise any objections to the assessment and they continued to pay the tax. During the general revision of the property tax, the property tax was enhanced with effect from 01.10.1998. Accordingly, the tax for the petitioner's building was revised at Rs.10,85,167/-. In fact, the petitioner was served notice with regard to the general revision and objections were called for. The petitioner did not raise any objections to the enhanced tax and as such, the proposed enhancement of tax was confirmed and issued demand notice. 14. Belatedly, in the month of April 1999, the petitioner filed six appeals before the Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore in TAT Case Nos.78 to 83 of 2000. Though all the appeals are one and the same, the Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the original assessment of the year 1996-1997 was illegal and reduced the property tax at Rs.2,05,149/-. However, the Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the general revision of the property tax as valid. 15. He further submitted that after the year 1998, there was no revision of the property tax and the revision is over due and all the municipal areas. However, the Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the general revision of the property tax as valid. 15. He further submitted that after the year 1998, there was no revision of the property tax and the revision is over due and all the municipal areas. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 12.11.2007 and thereby deciding the general revision of the property tax shall be taken up by all the local bodies with effect from 01.04.2008. As per the said G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 12.11.2007 and subsequent guidelines issued by the Government, the counsel of the respondent/Corporation by the Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 had resolved to revise the property tax subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, the property tax was revised, after following the procedures laid down under the Act. 16. Heard both sides. 17. The petitioner/Hotel was assessed for the property tax in the year 1996-1997. After the year 1998, there was no revision of the property tax and as such, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.11.2007, thereby the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to revise the property tax of all the local bodies with effect from 01.04.2008. As per the Government order and the guidelines issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the respondent by the Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 had resolved to revise the property tax. Accordingly, the property tax for the petitioner's Hotel was revised with effect from 01.10.1998. 18. All the assessment of property tax challenged before the Tax Appellate Tribunal. Though the Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the revision of the property tax, set aside the original assessment of the property tax. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner as well as the respondent filed appeals and the Court below upheld the order passed by the Tax Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner as well as the respondent filed these Civil Revision Petitions. 19. In all the Civil Revision Petitions, the point for consideration is that, whether the respondent is correct in not following the method prescribed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, when the municipal laws did not expressly exclude the application of the Rent Restrictions Act in the matter of determination of annual value of the building for the purposes of levying municipal taxes. 20. 20. The learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the respondent council has no power under the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation Act to adopt their own procedure for assessing the property tax. The Government order and the resolution cannot be equated with the fair rent procedure for fixing the annual rental value of the property. Though the resolution challenged by the petitioner before this Court, this Court already clarified that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Election), dated 12.11.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Election), dated 23.06.2008 containing certain guidelines. On the basis of the said G.Os, the respondents council passed resolution to revise the property tax to an extent not exceeding the percentage indicated, but not below the existing amount of tax. Therefore, it is only a cap on the limit upto which the revision can be made after following the due process of law. Thereby permitted the respondent to assess all the properties and to understand the impugned resolution as one fixing only the upper ceiling limit for revision and disposed of the Writ Petitions. 21. The G.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Election), dated 12.11.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (Election), dated 23.06.2008 was issued for assessing the property tax in an uniform manner. Accordingly, the respondents council passed Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 to revise the property tax and the respondent assessed the property tax for the petitioner's building. Therefore, the respondent has got right and power to adopt their own procedure for calculating the annual rental value. The respondent adopted the guidelines issued by the Government and subsequent Resolution was passed by the council. For the purpose of assessment, there are four criteria i.e., plinth area and usage of building, location of the building, type of construction and year of construction are to be considered for assessing the property tax. Accordingly, the petitioner's building categorized as Star Hotel. Based on those criteria apply the rights applicable to these different categories of building, the annual value of the entire building was arrived and assessed the property half yearly tax at Rs.24,20,540/-. As per the Resolution dated 28.05.2008 for the commercial buildings, the revision of property tax should not exceed 75% from the existing property tax. Based on those criteria apply the rights applicable to these different categories of building, the annual value of the entire building was arrived and assessed the property half yearly tax at Rs.24,20,540/-. As per the Resolution dated 28.05.2008 for the commercial buildings, the revision of property tax should not exceed 75% from the existing property tax. The existing half yearly tax liability of the petitioner as per the year 1998, the general revision was at Rs.10,85,173/- and 75% increased from the existing rate of tax at Rs.18,99,053/-. 22. Thereafter, the respondent issued demand notice as per the revised tax. Before revision of the said property tax, after inspection of the respondent officials of the petitioner's building, the petitioner submitted the representation with regard to plinth area of their building only 1,22,868 sq.ft and accordingly, requested the property tax to be assessed. Therefore, the respondent by the proceedings dated 05.02.2010, directed the petitioner to prove their claim. Thereafter, by the letter dated 06.02.2010, the petitioner submitted the correct extent of the building as 1,81,906 sq.ft. Therefore, the difference between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to plinth area of the building is only 5,813 sq.ft. However, the respondent again re-measured the building and confirmed the actual extent of the building at 1,83,473 sq.ft. Thereafter, on receipt of the demand notice, the petitioner requested to consider the building under boarding and lodging. As such, it was valued separately for guest and non-guest area and the rate of tax to the parking area reduced and the plinth house area is calculated under the residential category. A substantial portion of the building were categorised as office and it was taxed accordingly. The parking area was assessed at a lower rate. 23. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.150/MAWS department dated 12.11.2007 decided that the general revision of the property tax shall be taken by all the local bodies with effect from 01.04.2008. As per the Government order and subsequent guidelines, the council of the respondent/Corporation by the Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 had resolved to revise the property tax. 23. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.150/MAWS department dated 12.11.2007 decided that the general revision of the property tax shall be taken by all the local bodies with effect from 01.04.2008. As per the Government order and subsequent guidelines, the council of the respondent/Corporation by the Resolution No.21, dated 28.05.2008 had resolved to revise the property tax. The resolution dated 28.05.2008 reads as follows : “nfhak;g[j;Jhu; khefuhl;rpapy; 01/10/1998 y; eilbgw;w brhj;Jtup bghJr; rPuha;t[f;Fg;gpd; mLj;j Ie;J Mz;LfSf;F xU Kiwahd bghJ brhj; j tup rPuha;t[ 01/10/2003 y; eilbgw ntz;oaJ gw;wp muR KobtLf;fhjjhy; bghJ rPuha;t[ eilbgwtpy;iy/ jw;nghJ 01/04/2008 Kjy; elj;jg;glt[s;s bghJ brhj;Jtup rPuha;tpd;nghJ tup rhu;e;j tpjpfs; kw;Wk; rk;ge;jg;gl;l tHpfhl;Ljy; fz;og;ghf filgpof;f ntz;Lbkd khefuhl;rp Mizahsu;fSf;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;l murhiz (gy;tif) vz;/150 khkd;wj;jhy; jPu;khd vz;/296 ehs; 27/0/.2008 njjp gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/nkw;go murhiz kw;Wk; epu;thf Mizaupd; tHpfhl;Ljy;fspy; brhj;Jtup cau;tpdhy; cau;j;jg;gLk; tupfs; fPH;fz;l tuk;gpw;F epu;zapf;fg;gLtJld;. epu;zapf;fg;gl;l tuk;g[ Fwpg;gpl;l mst[f;Fnky; kpifahfhkYk; ve;j tpjj;jpYk; jpUj;jpa tup jw;nghija tupia tplf;Fiwthf ,y;yhkYk; nkw;go rPuha;t[g;gzp 01/04/2008 Kjy; 30/06/2008 y; Kof;ft[k; mwpt[wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ t/vz; ,d';fs; jw;nghija tupa[ld; cau;t[ rjtPjk; 1/ FoapUg;gpf; fl;ol';fs; (cupiljhuu; FoapUg;g[ my;yJ thliff;F) 25 rjtPjk; 2/ bjhHpw;rhiy fl;ol';fSf;F 100 rjtPjk; 3/ tu;j;jff; fl;ol';fSf;F 150 rjtPjk; 4/ MuRf; fl;ol';fSf;F 50 rjtPjk; 5/ jdpahu; fl;ol';fspy; ,a';Fk; kj;jpa muR khepy muR mYtyf';fSf;F nkw;fz;l tHofhl;Ljy;fs;go 1/ bjhHpw;rhiy fl;ol';fSf;F 2/ tu;j;jff; fl;ol';fSf;F 100 rjtPjk; 150 rjtPjk; 6/ Ke;ija rPuha;t[f; fhyj;jpy; tup tpjpg;ghd 19/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2465 of 2012, CRP (NPD) Nos.531 of 2006 and 1565 to 1567 of 2018 t/vz; ,d';fs; jw;nghija tupa[ld; cau;t[ rjtPjk; fl;o';fSf;F 1/ 01/10/2007f;Fg;gpd; tuptpjpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;l fl;o';fSf;F/ 2/ 01/04/2006 Kjy; 31/03/2006f;Fs;shd fl;o';fSf;F/ 3/ 01/04/2005 Kjy; 31/03/2006f;Fs; tuptpjpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;l fl;ol';fSf;F/ 4/ 01/04/2004 Kjy; 31/03/2005f;Fs; tuptpjpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;l fl;ol';fSf;F/ 5/ 01/04/2003 Kjy; 31/03/2004f;Fs; tuptpjpg;g[ bra;ag;gl;l fl;ol';fSf;F/ rPuha;t[ ,y;iy 5 rjtPjk; 10 rjtPjk; 15 rjtPjk; 20 rjtPjk; 7/ 1/ tpsk;gu nghu;Lfs; (Hoardings) 2/ jfty; bjhlu;g[ nfhg[u';fs; (Communication Towers) Fwpg;g[ 7y; cs;s ,d';fSf;F murpd; tHpfhl;Ljy; bgw;wgpd; tup rPuha;t[ bra;ayhk; khjpup tuptpjpg;g[ murplk; bgw;wgpd; tuptpjpg;g[ bra;ayhk;/ 8/ Rpwg;g[ ,d';fs; el;rj;jpu tpLjpfs;. jPk;ghu;f;. mLf;Fkho ika';fs;. tz[pf tshf';fs;. FspU:lg;gl;l jpUkz kz;lg';fs;. rpwg;g[kpF gpuj;naf kUj;Jtkidfs; (Super Special Hospital) Fwpg;g[ 8y; fz;Ls;s rpwg;g[. jPk;ghu;f;. mLf;Fkho ika';fs;. tz[pf tshf';fs;. FspU:lg;gl;l jpUkz kz;lg';fs;. rpwg;g[kpF gpuj;naf kUj;Jtkidfs; (Super Special Hospital) Fwpg;g[ 8y; fz;Ls;s rpwg;g[. ,d';fSf;f muR khtl;l Kjd;ik fz;fhzpg;g[g; bghwpahsu; mtu;fspd; tHpfhl;Ljiyg; bgw;w khjhe;jpu thlif kjpg;g[ epu;zak; bra;J tup tjpg;g[ bra;ayhk;/ 01/04/2008 ypUe;J jdpahf mog;gil kjpg;g[ epu;zapj;J tuptpjpg;g[ bra;ayhk;/ 01/04/2008 ypUe;J brhj;Jtup tpjpg;g[ bra;a;gLk; fl;ol';fSf;F jw;nghJs;s mog;gil kjpg;g[ld; ,dk; thupahf muR epu;zak; bra;Js;s cau;t[ rjtPjj;ij Tljyhf;fp fPHfz;lthW tuptjpg;g[ bra;ayhk;/ t/vz; ,dk; 01/10/1998y; rJuof;F mog;gil kjpg;g[ 01/04/2008y; rPuha;tpd;go cau;t[f;F mog;gil kjpg;g[ U: 1/ FoapUg;g[f; fl;ol';fs; 3/00 3/75 20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2465 of 2012, CRP (NPD) Nos.531 of 2006 and 1565 to 1567 of 2018 t/vz; ,dk; 01/10/1998y; rJuof;F mog;gil kjpg;g[ 01/04/2008y; rPuha;tpd;go cau;t[f;F mog;gil kjpg;g[ U: (cupikjhuu; FoapUg;g[ my;yJ thliff;F) 2/ bjhHpw;rhiy fl;ol';fSf;F (,U kl';F) 5/00 10/00 3/ tu;j;jf fl;ol';fSf;F (K:d;W kl';F) kUj;jtkidfs;. fy;ahz kz;lg';fs; kw;Wk; filfs; mYtyfk; jpiuau';Ffs;. czt[ tpLjpfs; j';Fk; tpLjpfs; el;rj;jpu ncwl;ly; j';Fk; tpLjp 6/50 7/50 7/80 11/20 19/50 22/50 23/40 33/60 tuptpjpg;g[ kw;Wk; epjpf;FG jPu;khd vz;/14 ehs; 22/04/2008d; go nkw;fhQqk; bghUs; Fwpj;J kd;wj;jpy; Kot[ bra;ayhk; vd jPu;khdpf;fg;gl;lJ/ khkd;wj;jpd; Kotpw;F rku;g;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ 24. The learned Senior Counsel contended that Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is applicable to the Corporation for fixing annual rent value for assessing the half yearly property tax. The Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act does not have any specific provision barring the Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for assessing the half yearly property tax in the Coimbatore City. Therefore, the annual rental value has to be assessed on the basis of the monthly rental value and the mode of calculation as assessed by the respondent is not correct. 25. In this regard, he relied upon the Judgment reported in 1970 (2) SCC 803 in the case of Guntur Municipal Council Vs. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the municipality is not a free to assess any arbitrary annual value and has to look to and is bound by the fair or the standard rent, which would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent Act in force during the year of assessment. 26. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in 1998 (4) SCC 368 in the case of East India Commercial Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 26. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in 1998 (4) SCC 368 in the case of East India Commercial Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the principle which is deducible is that when the Municipal Act requires the determination of the annual value, that Act has to be read along with Rent Restrictions Act which provides for the determination of fair rent or standard rent. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : “17. From the aforesaid decisions, the principle which is deducible is that when the Municipal Act requires the determination of the annual value, that Act has to be read along with Rent Restriction Act which provides for the determination of fair rent or standard rent. Reading the two Acts together the rateable value cannot be more than the fair or standard rent which can be fixed under the Rent Control Act. The exception to this rule is that whenever any Municipal Act itself provides the mode of determination of the annual letting value like the Central Bank of India case relating to Ahmedabad or contains a non obstante clause as in Ratnaprabha case then the determination of the annual letting value has to be according to the terms of the Municipal Act. In the present case, Section 168 of the Municipal Act does not contain any non obstante clause so as to make the Tenancy Act inapplicable and nor does the Act itself provide the method or basis for inapplicable and nor does not the Act itself provide the method of basis for determining the annual value. This Act has, therefore, to be read along with Tenancy Act of 1956 and it is the fair rent determinable under Section 8(1)(d) which alone can be the annual value for the purpose of property tax.” 27. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2002 (3) SCC 388 in the case of India Automobiles (1960) Ltd., Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and another. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : "21. A perusal of various judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, clearly shows that this Court has taken a consistent view regarding the determination of annual value of alnd or building for the purposed of determination of taxes under the Muncipal Acts. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : "21. A perusal of various judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, clearly shows that this Court has taken a consistent view regarding the determination of annual value of alnd or building for the purposed of determination of taxes under the Muncipal Acts. On the basis of various statues relating to the determination of the annual value for the purposes of the Municipal Acts, this Court has devised two distinct groups. One such group deals with the municipal laws of some States which do not expressly exclude application of the Rent Restrictions Acts in the matter of determination of annual value of a building for the purposes of levying municipal taxes and the other group deals with the municipal laws which expressly exclude application of the Rent Restruction Acts in the matter of determination of annual value of land or building on rental method. Wheres, in the first category of cases the determination of annual value has to be made on the basis of fair or standard rent notwithstanding the actual rent, even if it exceeds the statutory limits. In the other group where the restriction in the Rent Acts has been excluded, the determination of annual value of the building on rental method is referable to the method provided under the relevant Municipal Act. Whereas Padma Debi Case, LIC case, Guntur Town Rate Payers' Case and Dewan Daulat Rai Case deal with the first group of municipal laws, the cases in Ratnaprabha Case, AGM, Central Bank of India Case, East India Commercial Co. Case deal with the second group. As already noticed, this Court in LIc Case dealt with the first category as in Section 168 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, there existed no non obstante clause. The observations of the Bench of this Court which dealt with the case on 10.10.2001 cannot be taken in isolation. 28. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2008 (2) LW 2019 in the case of MKM Geeyavudeen Vs. The Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : "24. Therefore, one has to necessarily seek an extraneous aid for the purpose of finding out as to how the rent for a building offered on lease by the Municipality is to be fixed. The Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : "24. Therefore, one has to necessarily seek an extraneous aid for the purpose of finding out as to how the rent for a building offered on lease by the Municipality is to be fixed. As seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Guntur Municipal Council case, the method of fixation of fair rent as prescribed under the Rent Control Act was imported into the District Municipalities Act for the purpose of enabling the Municipality to determine the annual value of the buildings. Therefore, by the same analogy, the fair rent for the buildings offered on lease by Municipalities, has also to be determined on the same basis. In the absence of a specific provisions in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 the recourse to the method of fixation of fair rent as provided under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alone, in my considered view, could provide a scientific and logical basis for the fixation of rent. 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble Court held that the method of fixation of fair rent as prescribed under the Rent Control Act was imported into the District Municipalities Act for the purpose of enabling the municipality to determine the annual value of the building. In the absence of a specific provisions in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the recourse to the method of fixation of fair rent as provided under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alone, could provide a scientific and logical basis for the fixation of fair rent. 30. In the case on hand, as stated supra, as per the G.O.Ms.No.170, dated 02.09.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 12.11.2007, the Commissioners of all Municipalities and Municipal Corporations and Executive Officers of all Town Panchayats are instructed that the taxation rules and relevant guidelines should be strictly followed while taking up the general revision of the property tax in all the urban local bodies with effect from 01.04.2008. Accordingly, the respondent/Corporation passed the above said Resolution and valued the building and assessed the property tax. Accordingly, the respondent/Corporation passed the above said Resolution and valued the building and assessed the property tax. It is also relevant to extract the provisions for assessment of property tax under Section 122 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, hereunder : “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 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, int eh case of buildings, of ten 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 - (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 value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent 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 cent 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 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.” 31. Accordingly, the respondent valued the annual value of the petitioner's building and assessed the property tax and subsequently revised. Accordingly, the respondent valued the annual value of the petitioner's building and assessed the property tax and subsequently revised. In fact, by the communication dated 12.11.2009, the respondent requested the petitioner to submit report about the usage of building and measurement with regard to the authorised construction and unauthorised construction separately. On receipt of the same, the petitioner requested a period of 15 days to provide the information as required by the respondent. However, no reply received from the respondent and as such, by the communication dated 21.01.2010, the respondent formed team members for measuring the petitioner's building on 27.01.2010. In fact, by the communication dated 22.01.2010, the respondent informed to the petitioner about the inspection of the petitioner building to assess the value of the building. The petitioner sent a communication stating that the total build up area of the petitioner premises is 1,22,868.668 sq.ft and proceed in calculating the property tax. Thereafter, by the communication dated 04.02.2010, the team of the respondent/Corporation measured the property as 1,87,720 sq.ft. 32. However, the petitioner has measured the property and stated that the total plinth area of the petitioner's building is 1,81,906.614 sq.ft. Therefore, the respondent valued the property tax by the Government order, Resolution passed by the council of the respondent/Corporation and the procedure laid down under the Rent Control Act, guidelines issued by the Government and procedure contemplated under the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, to assess the property tax. Therefore, the above Judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 33. In view of the above discussion, the respondent is directed to assess the property tax of the petitioner's building as per the provision under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and accordingly calculate the property tax and make a proper demand to the petitioner within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 34. Considering the above, the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2017 passed in Tax CMA Nos.85 to 87 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, is hereby set aside. 34. Considering the above, the Judgment and Decree dated 04.08.2017 passed in Tax CMA Nos.85 to 87 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to assess the property tax under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and make a fresh demand to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to co-operate while assessing the property tax by the respondent. In the result, CRP (NPD) Nos.1565 to 1567 are allowed. 35. In view of the above, CRP (NPD) No.531 of 2006 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.