JUDGMENT : ANITA SUMANTH, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order dated 25.04.2018 in M.T.A. No. 2 of 2016 passed by the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent confirm the Order of Taxations Appellate Tribunal, Corporation of Chennai in T.A.T. No. 18 of 2011 passed on 10.08.2012. 1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the development of a special type of building. It has constructed a composite structure that includes a mall, 10 lodging houses and theatre screens. The property is situated at the postal address, New No. 349-357, Periyar E.V.R. Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029. 2. Prior to construction of the property and inauguration thereof in September 2009, a hotel by name, Hotel Arun, was being run in this above location, that was being assessed on the basis of rates applicable to Poonamallee High Road. Post development of the property in question, the petitioner had sought re-assessment of the property and had filed Form No. 6 under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The postal address continues to be the same i.e. on Poonamallee High Road and the petitioner's assessement continued to adopt the rates applicable to Poonamallee High Road. 3. Based upon the request of the petitioner dated 08.02.2011, a provisional assessment had come to be made. The petitioner was aggrieved by the provisional assessment and challenged the same including on the aspects of valuation and period for which tax was levied. The assessment was thus assailed before the Taxation Appeals Tribunal (TAT), Corporation of Chennai. 4. The Tribunal heard the petitioner on the various question raised, including, whether the property tax leviable was proper as regards the adoption of rental rates, that is, what would the more appropriate rate to be adopted, whether the rates applicable to Poonamallee High Road or Nelson Manickam Road. According to the petitioner, it was liable to be assessee on the rates applicable to Nelson Manickam Road whereas, according to the Corporation, the applicable rate was that applicable to Poonamallee High Road. 5. According to the petitioner, it was liable to be assessee on the rates applicable to Nelson Manickam Road whereas, according to the Corporation, the applicable rate was that applicable to Poonamallee High Road. 5. The arguments of the petitioner on the question of adoption of rental rate came to be accepted in the following manner: “The appellant has not disputed the Commercial area and the manner of assessment; since admittedly entire area is covered by roof. The only contention raised by the appellant is that entire building faces Nelson Manickam Road. The portion of Property faces on the Poonamallee High way is converted into park. The respondent Corporation also has not denied that all the entries to the building faces on the Nelson Manickam Road. In that area rate per sq. ft. is Rs. 3.30. Hence the rental value is Rs. 2157312/-.” 6. Thus, the conclusion of the Tribunal was to the effect that the rates applicable to Nelson Manickam Road ought to be applied in the petitioner's case insofar as that portion of the property facing Poonamallee High Road, had been gifted to the Corporation and converted into a park by way of Open Space Reservation (OSR). The Tribunal also notes that the entries to the building were on Nelson Manickam Road and it was only the exit points that were on Poonamallee High Road. 7. As against the aforesaid order, the Corporation of Chennai had filed an appeal before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, in respect of which impugned orders dated 25.04.2018 have come to be passed. On the question of whether the rents to be adopted would be the rates applicable to Poonamallee High Road or Nelson Manickam Road, the Principal Judge concludes that the conclusion of the Tribunal was liable to be reversed. 8. That apart, another issue that came to be considered was whether the quantification of the tax was itself correct, bearing in mind Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 856, Rural Development under Local Administrative Department, dated 19.04.1972, which deals with the quantification of property tax based on the Luxury Tax paid. It is as against the aforesaid order, that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. It is as against the aforesaid order, that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. Since the counter filed initially, dated 28.09.2020 did not address the question of how the determination of annual rental value has to be made in instances where the property was a corner plot, that is, had multiple frontages on more than one road, the Corporation was directed to obtain clarity on the issue and file an additional counter. 10. A counter with annexure has been filed on 19.07.2022 wherein the Corporation advances the arguments that (i) the postal address of the petitioner is in Poonamallee High Road, (ii) the property had been assessed to property tax on the rates prevailing in Poonamallee High Road prior to demolition and re-construction and that (iii) it is a universally accepted position that the higher of the rates are to be adopted in cases of application of multiple rates, as in the present case. 11. As regards the second issue, on quantification, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would point out at the conclusion of the authority in regard to the quantification of the tax was perfectly in order. 12. Having heard both the learned counsel, my decision is as follows. No doubt the property in question is situated with substantial frontage on both Poonamallee High Road as well as Nelson Manickam Road. The property has admittedly been offered to tax on the basis of the postal address, which is Poonamallee High Road, till the year 2011. 13. The only question to be determined is as to whether the provision of OSR to the Corporation would change the basis of assessment such that the admittedly lower rates applicable to Nelson Manickam Road should be applied. I would think not. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has accepted the position that the rates as applicable to Poonamallee High Road, would apply to the property and has been remitting the same till 2011. The gifting of a portion of the property to the Corporation for the purposes of OSR is in terms of the Development Control Regulations issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. 15. Regulation 26 provides for special buildings and sub regulation (22) thereof states as follows: “26. Regulation for Special Buildings: ......... The gifting of a portion of the property to the Corporation for the purposes of OSR is in terms of the Development Control Regulations issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. 15. Regulation 26 provides for special buildings and sub regulation (22) thereof states as follows: “26. Regulation for Special Buildings: ......... (22) The space set apart for formation of a new road as per Master Plan or Detailed Development Plan or road widening / street alignment shall be transferred to the Authority or the Agency or the Local Body designated by the Authority through a registered Gift Deed before actual issuance of planning permission. The exact mode of conveyance of the land shall be consistent with the relevant enactment and regulations. In such cases ‘Transfer of Development Rights’ (TDR) certificate may be obtained to the extent eligible as per regulations given in the Annexure XXI.” 16. The OSR provided is for purposes of a new road/road widening/street alignment and the portion so gifted has been selected by the petitioner. Thus, the location of the land has not been thrust upon the petitioner. The petitioner also admits that a TDR certificate has been obtained in respect of the land transferred. The visual representation of the property does not, in my considered view, get altered to its detriment since the arrangement of the OSR space and the greenery, only adds to elevation and visual appeal of the property. 17. Neither the location of the property, its postal address nor its frontage have been altered by virtue of the provision of OSR. No doubt, the main entrance may now be located on Nelson Manickam Road. However, this is a matter of convenience in management of the property. After all, the petitioner had full knowledge of the plan of the property, even when the choice of the space to be gifted was to be decided. 18. Despite being fully aware of the proposed structure and building plan, it proceeded with gifting the portion at the front abutting Poonamallee High Road for reasons of commercial expediency. That apart, the floor space index has been determined based on the width of Poonamallee High Road as a consequence that it has had the benefit of construction of 3 basements, Ground and 3 floors. 19. That apart, the floor space index has been determined based on the width of Poonamallee High Road as a consequence that it has had the benefit of construction of 3 basements, Ground and 3 floors. 19. In my considered view the petitioner cannot be permitted to pick and choose between the various benefits that it would be entitled to merely because it has the frontage of both the roads. In light of the discussion as above, the issue is held in favour of the Corporation and against the petitioner. 20. Coming to the question of computation, the Principal Judge has referred to G.O.Ms. No. 856 dated 19.04.1972 and states as follows: “From the above it is clear that the above G.O. holds the field levying of tax on hotels, lodging houses and business center. The G.O. classifies the hotels and lodging houses in 3 categories of hotels. In the case on hand it is admitted fact that the respondent building considered being Special Type of Assessment of the Cinema Theaters, Hotels and Lodgings belonging to M/s. Ampa Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and the annual rental value has been fixed at 20% of the room tariff and the 20% was fixed in the G.O. considering all the expenses that the Commissioner had fixed the annual value of the premises at Rs. 4,55,70,637/-.” No infirmity is pointed out in the aforesaid observation of the learned Judge that stands confirmed. 21. Since the petitioner states that it has effected certain payments that have not been given credit to, it is given liberty to make a representation to the respondent setting out details of the taxes paid thus far. Thereafter, let the respondent re-quantify the arrears as on date and raise demands taking into account excess payments stated to have been made by the petitioner. 22. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.