Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar And Anr. vs Municipal Committee And Ors. on 9 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)107PLR464
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment disposes of CWP No. 4247 of 1980 and 4246 of 1980.
2. The petitioners have challenged the supplementary amended assessment for the year 1979-80 regarding House-tax and shops situate within the limits of, Municipal Committee, Rohtak, in these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
3. A reference to relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in CWP No. 4247 of 1980.
4. Municipal Committee, Rohtak, revised the assessment of the disputed property for the year 1979-80. The order of the Municipal Committee was upheld in appeal by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Rohtak, vide order dated May 5, 1980. A reading of the writ petition reveals that the challenge is principally on the ground that the annual value of the property cannot be fixed higher than the standard rent. The Municipal Committee ought to have fixed the standard rent before fixing the annual value of the property.
5. The authorities under the Municipal Act are not under an obligation to determine the annual value as defined Under Section 2(1) of the Municipal Act keeping in view the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction Act). The petitioners arc not justified in saying that the standard rent has to be determined before fixing the annual value. Reliance can usefully be placed on the following observations by a single Judge of this Court in Norton Motors v. The State of Haryana and Ors., 1982 R.L.R. 114 at pp. 116 & 117:-
" The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that assuming that the building in dispute is covered by Section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the annual assessment is liable to be struck down for the reason that it has not been made keeping in view the principles of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Reliance has been placed on New Delhi Municipal Committee v. M.N. Soi and Anr., A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 302, and bevan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 541. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is that keeping in view the definition of annual value as given in Section 2(1) of the Act, the petitioner "-cannot invoke the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, in the "matter of assessment of annual value of the buildings in dispute. Reliance has been placed on Municipal Corporation, Indore and Ors. v. Smt. Ratnaprabha and Ors., A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 308.1 agree with the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. It has been held in Ratnaprabha's case (supra).
"As has been stated, Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act provides that the annual value of any building shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force be deemed to be the gross annual rent for which the building might reasonably, at the time of the assessment by expected to let from year to year. While, therefore, the requirement of the law is that the reasonable letting value should determine the annual value of the building, it has also been specifically provided that this would be so notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It appears to us that it would be a proper interpretation of the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act to hold that in a case where the standard rent of a building has been fixed Under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act and there is nothing to show (hat there has been fraud or collusion, that would be its reasonable letting value, but, where this is not so, and the building has never been let out and is being used in a manner where the question of fixing its standard rent does not arise, it would be permissible to fix its reasonable rent with regard to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This view will, in our opinion, give proper effect to the non obstante clause in Clause (b) with due regard to its other provision that the letting value should be reasonable." "Keeping in view the definition of Annual value contained in Section 2(1) of the Act, it is clear that the ratio of Ratnaprabha's case (Supra) will apply to the instant case, It was, therefore, not incumbent upon the authorities to assess the annual value of the building in dispute keeping in view the provisions of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act."
No contrary decision has been brought to my notice.
6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are bereft of any merit and the same are dismissed.