(1.) IN this regular second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed on 23.4.2007: -
(2.) IN exercise of my powers under Section 100 (5) proviso CPC, in addition, I also frame the following substantial questions of law: -
(3.) THE admitted facts are that the respondent -plaintiff does not dispute that it is a licensee of the suit property. Respondent -plaintiff had filed in the trial court the letter of DDA dated 21.7.1967 Ex.PW1/1, allowing the respondent -plaintiff to occupy the land as an alternative site for the land which was vacated by the respondent -plaintiff. I may state that governmental authorities in view of its policies to bring about proper zonal usage in the capital of the country, particularly for commercial or industrial activities, allots/gives licencee rights in alternative site to the person who has to be relocated. Respondent -plaintiff in addition to Ex.PW1/1, admitted the license fee receipts and which were proved and exhibited by the appellant/defendant as Ex.PW1/D -1 to D -3. These receipts show payment of ground rent by the respondent -plaintiff to DDA. Appellant -plaintiff issued a notice under Section 126 of the DMC Act dated 30.4.1974 to assess the property for the purpose of property tax and to which a reply was sent by the respondent -plaintiff objecting that he was not liable in view of Section 120 of the DMC Act. A second notice dated 27.3.1979 was issued to the respondent -plaintiff for assessing the ratable value of Rs.8,640/ - w.e.f 1.4.1978 on the ground of erection of property on the suit land. The case of the respondent -plaintiff was that in spite of filing objections appellant did not decide the same but instead issued a demand for payment of tax dated 28.3.1989, and therefore, the subject suit for injunction came to be filed. The appellate court by the impugned judgment has proceeded on the basis that a licencee of a property is not an owner or a lessee and therefore no property tax can be charged from such a person as per Section 120 of the DMC Act.