Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gobind Lal Bhagwan Dass vs Municipal Committee on 13 August, 2010
RSA No.3031 of 1985 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3031 of 1985
Date of Decision: 13.08.2010
M/s Gobind Lal Bhagwan Dass ..Appellant
Vs.
Municipal Committee, Goniana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
Present: Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest?
---
Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)
This regular second appeal by the plaintiff/appellant has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1985 passed by the learned courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to recover the enhanced RSA No.3031 of 1985 2 house tax for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 in respect of Property No.B-I-82 situated at Goniana Mandi. The assessment was said to be illegal, void, inoperative ultra vires, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice.
Pleaded case of the plaintiff/appellant was, that the plaintiff was owner of property bearing No.B-I-82, situated in Goniana Mandi. The assessment made by the defendant/respondent on 24.12.1982 was illegal, void, arbitrary, inoperative, ultra vires, and against law and facts.
Plaintiff before approaching the civil court filed an appeal against the assessment for the year 1980-81, before Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bathinda. Appeal was also dismissed which was also said to have not been decided in accordance with law.
The case of the plaintiff/appellant was that no reasons were disclosed by the defendant/committee in enhancing the house tax therefore, order was illegal on the face of it.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was assessment of the house tax could not be more than the standard/fair rent. Even if the landlord was getting more than the standard rate fixed. The case of the plaintiff was that the Municipal Committee could not take advantage of the defiance of law by the landlord.
Initially house rent was fixed at Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only), which was enhanced to Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only). As already mentioned above, plea was raised that no reasons were given for enhancing the rent, and that the committee could RSA No.3031 of 1985 3 impose the tax retrospectively.
Suit was contested by the defendant/committee on the ground, that the suit was bad for want of notice under section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short the Act), and that the plaintiff had already paid tax for the year 1980-1981 and 1981-82, therefore, suit was infructuous qua said claim.
On merit, it was stated that the previous assessment was for Rs.11000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) and the assessment was adopted for the later years.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the assessment impugned is illegal, void, inoperative, ultra vires, without jurisdiction against the principles of natural justice as pleaded in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
4. Relief.
Issues Nos. 1 and 3 were taken up together. Learned trial court decided issues No.1 and 3 against the plaintiff/appellant for the reason, that even though claim raised by the appellant was that he was not liable to pay enhanced rent for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 but it was RSA No.3031 of 1985 4 admitted by him, that enhanced rent had already been paid. Findings recorded by the learned trial court was, that in the absence of relief of refund no relief could be granted, as the suit was merely for injunction.
As regards house rent for the year 1982-83 was concerned, the learned court considered the evidence of the plaintiff, wherein he deposed that the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant was accepted and case was remanded back to the Committee for a fresh decision. That he was not called by the Committee for reassessment. The court, therefore held, that there was no evidence of the plaintiff/appellant to challenge the subsequent order made by the Committee, after the case was remanded back.
The plea of the appellant, that in view of the settled law no assessment beyond the fair rent as per provisions of Rent Act could be fixed for determining the annual rental value was answered by recording a finding that annual value was to be assessed as per Section 3 (1)(b) of the Act.
The learned court recorded a finding, that as the plaintiff had failed to disclose the annual rental income, therefore, judgment relied upon by the plaintiff/appellant in support of his contention was not applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned trial court thereafter considered the question whether in view of Sections 84 an 86 of the Act, jurisdiction of the civil court was barred as assessment of house tax was made under section 61 (1)
(a) of the Act.
The learned court held, that the matter with regard to the jurisdiction of the courts stood decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the RSA No.3031 of 1985 5 case of Munshi Ram Vs. MunicipalCommittee, Chheharata AIR 1979 SC 1250, the learned trial court held, that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
Issues Nos. 1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff/appellant. Issue No.2 was decided against the defendant as not pressed. In appeal, findings recorded by the learned trial court were affirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this court:-
1. Whether Municipal Committee could assess the house rent more than the one fixed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act?
2. Whether on account of violation of provisions of the statute could it be held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred?
In support of the substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it was authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that annual rent value has to be fixed as per the provisions of Rent Act and the Municipal Committee could not take advantage of the actual rental value, on the basis of rent actually received by the landlord, as that arrangement would be barred by the provisions of the Rent Act and no cognizance of the said rent could be taken note of in RSA No.3031 of 1985 6 law.
This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Under section 3 (1)(a) of the Act, the assessment of annual value is to be as per the provisions of the Act, and in the absence of any evidence showing the rent received by the landlord. It is not open to the appellant to challenge the house tax fixed. In any case, suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable in view of the bar under sections 84 and 86 of the Act, as admittedly an order was passed in exercise of jurisdiction under section 61 of the Act.
The plaintiff/appellant neither pleaded nor led any evidence to show how statutory provisions were violated by the authorities so as to give jurisdiction to the civil court to adjudicate the dispute. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. The findings of the learned courts below holding that civil court had no jurisdiction are affirmed.
For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Vinod K.Sharma) 18.05.2010 Judge rp