Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs The Municipal Committee And Anr. on 18 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)116PLR305
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. By this judgment I dispose of eight writ petitions bearing Nos. 11503, 11520 of 1988, 1447, 1448, 1450,1451, 1452 and 1453 of 1989 titled: Ashok Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Anr. Vinod Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Anr. Harbans Lal v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Bishan Lal v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Bimla Devi v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Vijay Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Wazir Singh v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Des Raj Amrit Lal v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and ors, respectively, as in the opinion of this Court a common question of law and facts is involved in all these writ petitions and I am taking the facts for the disposal of all the writ petitions from writ petition No. 11503 of 1988 titled Ashok Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Anr..'
2. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 1. and 2 vide which the house-tax has been imposed upon the property of the petitioner. Ashok Kumar, has alleged in the writ petition that he is owner of the property bearing No. B. III-74, situated on the Railway Road, Khanna. The front portion of the property which is all vacant site was taken on rent and he raised construction over it. The petitioner pays rent to the Municipal Committee for the vacant land. The petitioner gave the shop on rent to M/s Deepak Traders at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- vide rent deed dated 2.9.1983. The total rent of the property was Rs. 50/- per month, so the annual rental value as warranted by the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, did not exceed Rs. 1200/- per year and no house tax was payable regarding this property. He did not pay house tax of the property from 1983-84 to 1987-88. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 15.12.1987 that the assessment of the property for the purposes of house tax was liable to be changed. Notice was issued under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The notice did not specify as to on what account, the assessment was liable to be changed. It has been alleged by the petitioner that before the issuance of the notice the Assessing Authority did not apply the mind. Notice is Annexure P.2 on the record. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply in the shape of objections and it was submitted that the petitioner had given part of the property on rent to M/s Deepak Traders and the monthly rent does not exceed Rs. 50/- per month. He has not made any change or alteration in the property. There was no house tax for the property earlier and, therefore, the house-tax could not be imposed. It was also mentioned in the reply that front portion of the property was owned by the Committee and petitioner was only a tenant. The grouse of the petitioner is that his objections were not considered on merits by respondent No. 1. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Khanna reduced the rental value from Rs. 15,600/- to Rs. 6000/-, but the objections of the petitioner were not dealt. The assessment was not made by applying the criteria for determining the fair rent under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2. Inspite of the fact that written arguments were submitted detailing the case of the petitioner, by a creptic order his appeal was dismissed vide order Annexure P.6. Now the challenge has been given by the petitioner Ashok Kumar to Annexures P.4 and P.6 mainly on the grounds that the authorities while making a demand for the enhancement of the house tax did not comply with the provisions of section 4 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and in this manner impugned orders Annexures P.4 and P.6 are illegal. Similar is the grouse of other writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions to the effect that respondents while assessing the house tax did not comply with the provisions of fair rent.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents and it has been contested by respondent No. 1 who filed written statement and denying the averments of the writ petition it has been averred by respondent No. 1 that the impugned assessment was made with the consent of the petitioner Ashok Kumar. The proposed rental value was reduced to Rs. 6000/- to which the petitioner agreed as is evident from impugned Annexure P.4. The petitioner has not challenged this fact either before the Appellate Authority or even in this petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. On merits it is averred that rent note is only a paper transaction between father and son. The lessee of a vacant land who raises construction on the municipal land is liable to pay house tax for the building. The property in question escaped assessment by mistake, hence assessment has been made Under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Justifying the orders Annexures P.4 and P.6 of the writ petition of Ashok Kumar, this respondent prayed for its dismissal.
4. In the other writ petitions, the stand of the Municipal Committee is common with the stand taken up by the Committee in the writ petition of Ashok Kumar, but one thing is clearly established from different replies of the Committee that while making a demand for the enhanced house-tax, the respondent Municipal Committee did not comply with the provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act.
5. These writ petitions are being disposed of with the assistance of Shri Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, who gave appearance on behalf of the petitioners and Shri J.R. Mittal, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of respondent.
6. The only submission which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that annual rental value ought to have been determined Under Section 3(1)(b) of the Municipal Act and annual rental value will be the standard rent of the disputed property. According to Shri Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, the house tax can be levied only on the rental value to be fixed in the light of the provisions. On the contrary, it was submitted by Shri J.R. Mittal, Advocate, that the impugned order Annexure P.4 has been passed on the basis of consent and this aspect has not been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority which passed the order Annexure P.6 and also in the writ petition, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. With regard to other writ petitions the stand of Shri Mittal is that the impugned orders have been passed according to law.
7. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I find that there is merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. First of all I would like to deal with the arguments of Shri Mittal who took a preliminary objection for the dismissal of the writ petition of Ashok Kumar. In the opinion of this Court, the submission raised by Shri Mittal has no merit. It is an admitted case of the parties that Ashok Kumar, petitioner, was never satisfied with the impugned order Annexure P.4 and for that reason he challenged this order before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, who passed order Annexure P.6. Further the conduct of petitioner Ashok Kumar shows that he was never satisfied with the impugned orders Annexures P.4" and P.6 and for that reasons, he has come in the present writ petition.
8. So far as the merits are concerned, the point of law involved in the present writ petitions has been consistently settled by this Court in the various judgments. In this regard, a chain of authorities have been relied upon by learned counsel Shri Sarjit Singh, and my attention has been invited to (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 757 Waliati Ram v. Municipal Committee, Patiala, ; (1993-2)104 P.L.R. 225, Gian Chand v. State of Punjab, ; (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 260, Sahib Datta v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, ; (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 656 Gurdial Singh v. Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, ; (1974)76 P.L.R. 176 Kidar Nath v. Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, . The joint senses of the authorities relied upon from the side of the petitioners is that the rent of the building cannot be in excess of the fair rent as determined under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The impugned orders do not show that the Administrator of the Committee or the Appellate Authority took into consideration about the fair rent of the building regarding which the enhanced house tax was proposed to the owner. In these circumstances, various orders under challenge in the different writ petitions cannot sustain. The same are hereby set aside. Directions are given to the Municipal Committee to proceed according to law and it will not proceed further for the implementation of those orders vide which the house tax has been imposed upon the various writ petitioners without compliance to the provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban. Rent Restriction Act. There will be no order as to costs in any only of the writ petitions.