MCD Vs. INDERMEET KAUR KOCHHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/MCD is aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.07.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge in HTAs No.21/2003 and 22/2003. By the aforesaid common decision, both the appeals preferred by the respondent/assessee in respect of the property tax for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 against the common assessment order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the petitioner/MCD determining the rateable value of the first floor of the premises bearing No.C-209, Defence Colony, New Delhi, were allowed and the impugned assessment order dated 16.12.2002 was set aside. By the assessment order dated 16.12.2002, the rateable value of the subject premises was fixed by the MCD at Rs.2,38,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and at Rs.4,08,000/- w.e.f. 15.11.2002. THE assessment w.e.f. 01.04.2001 had been done on the basis of the purchase price of the subject flat, which the respondent/assessee had purchased for a sum of Rs.28 lacs vide sale deed dated 13.11.2002. THE assessment w.e.f. 15.11.2002 was done on the rental basis, by taking into account the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month, fetched by the property after its purchase w.e.f. 15.11.2002.

(2.) THE aforesaid assessment orders were assailed by the respondent/assessee before the learned ADJ on various grounds. One of the grounds taken in the appeals was that the petitioner/MCD had not issued any statutory notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act either for the assessment year 2001-02 or for the assessment year 2002-03 and that such a statutory notice was neither served upon the respondent/assessee nor on her predecessor-in-title and therefore, as per law, the petitioner/MCD did not have any authority to increase the rateable value of the subject premises for any of the two assessment years.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner/MCD has preferred the present petitions. The main plank of the arguments urged by learned counsel for the petitioner/MCD is that the court below erred in observing that the notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act had not been served on the recorded owner, namely, M/s R.K. Apartments as per the provision of law. She urged that the notice for amendment in the assessment list is required to be served on the owner or lessee or occupier of the building in terms of the provisions of Sections 124(3) and 126 of the DMC Act and that in the present case, the court below ought to have held that the notice, having been duly served on M/s R.K. Apartments, was deemed to be adequate the service on the recorded owner of the property.