NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. GYMKHANA CLUB LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) New Delhi Municipal Committee is the appellant in all the cases. It has felt aggrieved at the judgment of the High court of Delhi passed in the writ petition filed by it which was taken up for hearing along with some other writ petitions filed, inter aila, by Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited, who is the principal respondent in some of the appeals. The subject-matter of the writ petitions before the High court related to the fixation of 'annual value' for the purpose of determining house tax to be paid by the respondents herein. The stand of the Municipal Committee before the High court was that in fixing annual value under the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the provisions of which Act admittedly apply, the estimated market value of the site and land attached to the house or building has also to be taken into consideration as required by clause (c) of Ss. (1 of the aforesaid section. This contention has not been accepted by the High court, the result of which is that the annual value of the buildings has come down considerably which has affected the ultimate amount to be realised as house tax from the respondents.

(3.) The short point for consideration, therefore, is whether while determining the annual value of the buildings, market value of the land has also to be taken into consideration. According to the contesting respondents, who are, apart from the aforesaid Gymkhana Club, Cheirnsford Club and Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) , market value cannot be taken into consideration as they have only leasehold interest in the land which has no market value. It has been contended on behalf of these respondents by their respective counsel that all the lease deeds, to which we shall advert alittle later, show that the land is not transferable without sanction in writing of the authority concerned and use of the land has also been restricted by some terms of the covenants. The contention, therefore, is that such a leasehold land cannot have market and so there cannot be any market value for such a land.