Delhi High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Vimla Rajan vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr. on 4 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 102(2003)DLT466
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioner has impugned the orders of the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority fixing the rateable value of property No. L-21, Green Park Main, New Delhi.
2. The only contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment orders have been passed without taking into consideration the principle of parity. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh and Ors. v. M.C.D. and Ors., ; Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary (Retd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., 85 (2000) DLT 223 (SC); and MCD v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, . Learned Counsel for the respondent also seeks to rely on the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that the principle of parity as laid down in the said judgments would not apply after the DMC (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye-laws, 1994 came into force since the principle of parity are itself incorporated in the said bye-laws.
3. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. There is no doubt on the issue that the said bye-laws will apply prospectively and thus the principle of parity as laid down in the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court would apply for the period prior to the amendment of the bye-laws.
4. Insofar as period post the bye-laws coming into force in concerned, this Court in Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala's case (supra), has held that the principle of parity as laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh's case (supra), and Lt. P.R. Chaudhary's case (supra), would continue to apply specially taking into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in Delhi Urban House owners Welfare Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., . Learned Counsel for the respondent has however, referred to the judgment in Lt. P.R. Chaudhary's case (supra), and more specifically para 4 where the Supreme Court stated that in the matter in question the law as it existed prior to the amendment of the Rent Act in 1988 was under consideration. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that while earlier the cost of land was taken as on the date of commencing of construction, this aspect has been taken care of under the bye-laws and thus the principle of parity is incorporated in the bye-laws itself.
5. In my considered view there is no doubt that to some extent the principle of parity has been incorporated in the bye-laws as mentioned aforesaid by the learned Counsel for the respondent. However, this does not take care of the situation where two properties constructed at the same time would have wide differential in the rateable value on account of the fact that one of the properties in the same condition has been sold at a subsequent date. Further the issue of cost of construction has also not be taken into account.
6. In Dr. Balbir Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the principle of parity has to be borne in mind in order to avoid wide disparity between the rateable value of similar premises situated in the same locality taking into consideration that the old premises were constructed many years ago when the land price were not so high and cost of construction has not (sic.) while in the recent constructed premises there has been drastic increase. Further in P.R. Chaudhary's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that "Considering the same and similar services which are provided by the local authority if there is vast disparity between the rateable value of the old premises and the new premises that would be wholly illogical and irrational".
7. The aforesaid shows that the principle of parity as a whole is not incorporated in the bye-laws and for this reason a view was taken in Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala case (supra) by this Court that the said principle as laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh's case (supra) and Lt. Col. P.R. Chaudhary's case (supra), would continue to apply even post amendment of the bye-laws.
8. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner may also be noted that the question of applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to self-occupied property would not have arisen but for the principles having been made applicable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh's case (supra).
9. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority for re-determination of the rateable value taking into consideration the principles of parity which would be applicable pre and post bye-laws.
10. The petitioner may appear before the Deputy Assessor and Collector on 20th January, 2003 at 3.00 p.m. for further proceedings. The Assessing Authority shall after hearing the petitioner endeavor to pass an order within a period of three months thereafter.
11. Writ petition stands disposed of.