Punjab-Haryana High Court
Municipal Corporation vs Ram Lubhaya on 3 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)140PLR190
Author: Nirmal Singh
Bench: Nirmal Singh
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J.
1. The brief facts of the case are that property in dispute was an evacuee property and vested in the Central Government. Before independence, the Mohamdins were in possession of the property in dispute and they had installed a brick-kiln. After the independence, the plaintiff took the property on rent @ Rs. 100/- from the respondent. The Municipal Corporation demanded house tax from the plaintiff vide bill dated 26.3.1976 for the years 1975 to 1979 amounting to Rs. 1,782.50. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned trial Court for restraining the defendant not to recover the said amount on the ground that the property is exempted from the house tax.
2. The defendant contested the suit and controverted the allegations and raised number of preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the property in dispute was not an evacuee property and, therefore, the plaintiff is liable to make the payment of house tax. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.1981. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 18.3.1981, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jallandhar, who, vide judgment dated 31.1.1983 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit against the defendant by reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court.
3. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1983, the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Mr. T.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge has not appreciated the evidence and law in its right perspective. He submitted that under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (for short, "the Act"), the house tax is leviable not only on the property owned by the owner but also on the person who possessed it as a tenant. He submitted that admittedly the respondent was in possession of the property in dispute which was owned by Central Government. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the house tax. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon Delhi Golf Club Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1997(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 257, Bharat Patroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1997(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 58, Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Bharat Brothers, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 96; Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 239, Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, 1986 R.R.R. 330, Municipal Committee, Khanna v. Sub Divisional Officer (C) Samrala, 1986 R.R.R. 334.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned lower Appellate Court. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the respondent is liable to pay the house tax?
6. It is an admitted case of the parties that before independence, the property was in : possession of the Mohamdins and they had installed a brick-kiln on the same. After the independence, the Mohamdins left the property and had gone to Pakistan and the said property had been declared as evacuee property and the same vest in the Central Government. The property which is owned by Central Government is exempted from levy of ' house tax under Section 96 of the Act. The said section reads as under: -
96. Taxation of Union properties.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of the Chapter, lands and buildings being properties of the Union shall be exempt from the taxes on lands and buildings specified in Section 91:
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Corporation from levying any of the said (taxes) on such lands and buildings to which immediately before the 26th January, 1950, they were liable or treated as liable so long as that tax continues to be levied by the Corporation on other lands and buildings."
Therefore, from the above it is clear that when the property belongs to Central Government, the same is exempted from levy of house tax either on the owner or on the tenant. Once the property is exempted from the levy of house tax, then assessing the property for the purpose of house tax is beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter.
7. The authorities, as cited by learned counsel for the appellant, are not relevant to the point in issue. In all the cases, the property was not exempted under the Act. Therefore, it was held that the persons who were in possession of the property are also liable to pay the tax. However, in the case in hand, as it has been held above, the property itself is exempted from the levy of house tax as the same belongs to Central Government. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and decreed the suit. There is no illegality of legal infirmity in the same.
In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.