VINOD CHAWLA Vs. V C INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notices issued under Section 126. of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter called the DMC Act in short, and the assessment orders passed in respect of the property No. A- 1/55, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi as also the letter of attachment issued by the respondent Corporation in respect of the aforesaid property.

(2.) Smt. Iqbal Devi is the recorded owner in respect of the aforesaid property in the records maintained by the Corporation. A notice under Section 126 dated 27.3.1992 was issued in the name of Smt. Iqbal Devi C/o Shri Vinod Chawla proposing to fix ratable value of the said property at Rs.8,64,000.00 in response to which the petitioner filed objections on 11.4.1992. A call letter was issued by the respondent Corporation for personal hearing, in response to which the petitioner appeared and informed that the property was let out to Rajdoot Guest House on rent @ Rs.4,000.00 upto 31.3.1990 and at Rs.6,000.00 from 1.4.1990. A notice was also sent under Section 131 by the Corporation to the present occupier M/s. Madura Communications Limited who in response informed that rent for the property in question from 5.5.1998 was Rs.50,000.00 per month whereas rent was being paid in respect of the property at Rs.57,000.00 per month w.e.f. 15.7.1990 and at Rs.87,000.00 per month w.e.f. 5.5.1991. The said occupier also informed the respondent Corporation that there was a security deposit of Rs.2,70,000.00 which was paid sometime in the month of May, 1998 and that a security amount of Rs.5,22,000.00 was paid in the month of May, 1991 to M/s. Rajdoot Guest House who had entered into the agreement with the petitioner. The aforesaid informations were not supplied by the recorded owner to the Assessing Authority and therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid informations and on perusal of the record, and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner ratable value of the property was fixed at Rs.5,40,000.00 w.e.f.- 5-5-1988 and at Rs. 6,16,000.00 w.e.f. 16-7-1980 & at Rs. 8,64,000.00 w.e.f. 5-5-1991 by an assessment order dated 21-5-1994 and a copy of the same was sent to her. Subsequently another notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was sent to Smt. Iqbal Devi, proposing fixation of ratable value at Rs. 9,39,000.00 inasmuch as it was believed by the respondent that the valuation was erroneously fixed and that there has been an increase in the ratable value of the property. In response to the same the petitioner filed objections dated 4-4-1994. A call letter was also issued to Smt. Iqbal Devi for personal hearing. Pursuant to the said letter, however, neither the assesses appeared for the personal hearing nor furnished copies of the requisite documents so as to enable the Assessing Authority of the respondent Corporation to decided the case on merits. Accordingly the ratable of the property was fixed at Rs. 9,39,600.00 w.e.f. 1- 4-1993. Consequent to the same a bill dated 19-8- 1998 was sent to Smt. Iqbal Devi claiming payment of a sum of Rs. 31,98.979.00 and as the said amount was not paid an attachment order was issued in respect of the property in question. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions on the part of the respondent Corporation the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order of attachment, the impugned bills, the orders of assessment as also the notices issued under Section 126 of the DMC Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, submitted that no notice under Sections 124 and 126 of the DMC Act was served on the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 although the said respondent had due notice of the fact that the petitioner was the owner of the property, he having acquired the same by way of perpetual lease dated 27-2-1967 and as such the entire assessment proceedings are illegal and vitiated. It was also submitted that as no proceeding under Section 124 was initiated and no notice under Section 124 of the DMC Act was served on the petitioner the assessment proceedings are illegal and violative of the provisions of Section 124 of the DMC Act. It was also submitted that no basis or formula was disclosed in the notices issued under Section 126 of DMC Act as to how the assessment proposed was worked out and as such the impugned actions are illegal. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the assessment list is an annual affair and creates a fresh and independent cause of action every year and therefore, the respondent No. 2 could not have issued one composite notice for amending the assessment list for four years and that it was necessary for respondent No. 2 to get separate and independent notices served on the petitioner for the years 1988-89,1989-90,1990-91 and 1991-92.