P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. This case comes up on a reference by the Court of Small Causes under Rule 17 of Schedule IV to the Madras City Municipal1 Act in an appeal filed to that Court against the decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee relating to the levy of property tax on premises No. 19, Angappa Naick Street, George Town, Madras, on the appellants. The material half years in question are the second half year 1945-46 and the first half year 1946-47. The demand for these two half years was made at the rate of Rs. 74-15-11 per half year on the basis of the annual valuation of the property at Rs. 864. The tax due for these two half years was paid in accordance with the demand on 28th February, 1946 and 7th August, 1946, respectively. Later on, the property tax assessment registers of the Corporation were amended and the annual valuation of the' pro-property was enhanced from Rs. 864 to Rs. 5,460. Thereafter the Corporation called upon the appellant to pay for the two half years aforesaid the difference of tax between Rs. 74-15-11 and Rs. 611 claiming the same as 'escaped assessment.' The appellants appealed to the Taxation Appeals Committee contending that the levy was illegal because under Rule 3 of Schedule IV to the City Municipal Act, the enhanced rate was payable only for the half years succeeding the amendment of the tax registers and not for the preceding half years, as there had been, a demand before the amendment. They also denied that Section 137-B of the Act had any application to their case. The decision of the Taxation Appeals Committee went against them. Thereupon they filed an appeal to the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Rule 15(a) of Schedule IV to the Act. Under that provision no appeal shall be heard by the said Court, unless (ii) the petition of appeal was presented within 14 days from the date of the decision and the tax has, been paid for the said period. Admittedly, the appellants did not pay the tax which had been demanded of them and which formed the subject-matter of their appeal and which was covered by the order appealed against by them. The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that by reason of the omission to pay the tax under this clause, the appeal was incompetent. He also held against the appellants on the main question of law, namely, whether as a result of the subsequent amendment to the property tax assessment books the excess tax was livable for the two half years in which there had already been a demand and payment of the tax as demanded. At the instance of the appellants, the Court of Small Causes referred to this Court the two following questions of law for decision:
(1) Whether after property tax in respect of a property has been demanded and paid for any half year it is found as a result of subsequent amendment of property tax assessment books, that more should have been levied for that half year, is the case governed by Section 137-B or by rule (3) of schedule IV to the City Municipal Act ?
(2) Whether under Rule 15 in schedule IV to the Act, an appeal filed to this Court is maintainable without payment of the extra amount of tax demanded in the circumstances above-mentioned ?
In our opinion there can be only one answer to the second question, namely, that without payment of the tax which is the subject-matter of the appeal, the appeal is not maintainable under Rule 15. The language of Rule 15 is imperative and the Court of Small Causes would have no jurisdiction to entertian an appeal unless the requirements contained in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 15, Sub-rule (a), are satisfied. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that as he has paid what according to him is the tax legally due for the two half years in question, he has complied with the requirements of Clause (ii). We cannot agree. There is no room for doubt as to the requirement of Clause (ii) and that is payment of the tax due under the order appealed against. The appellants admittedly have not paid this tax. The appeal was therefore incompetent and must have been. dismissed in limine on that ground.
2. Having regard to our answer to question 2, it is not necessary to pronounce an opinion on question 1. The appellant will pay the costs of the reference, advocate's fee Rs. 50.