E B CHAKRAPANI Vs. COMMISSIONER GUDIYATHAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the respondent dated 01.08.2001 in Special Notice No.9014.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the property situated in Door No.67/1 Kosa annamalai street of Gudiayatham Municipality belongs to the petitioner. A special notice was issued by the first respondent revising the property tax with effect from 01.04.1977. According to the petitioner the said notice has been issued enhancing the property tax from Rs. 8,803/- to 52,406/- unilaterally without any basis and with retrospective effect. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent has not followed the provisions contained under Sections 82 to 84 of the District Municipality Act, before arriving at the property tax to be paid by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in any case the valuation will have to be fixed uniformly in consonance with the property tax fixed in respect of the other similarly placed buildings under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings will have to be set aside.

(3.) In support of this submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 1 CTC 791 K.R.Abirami Vs. The Kumbakonam Municipality, rep. by its Executive Authority, The Commissioner, Dr. Muthy Road, Kumbakonam Town, 2008 2 LW 374 Kalairasi Vs. Thanjavur Muncipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Gandhiji Road, Thanjavur, 1994 Writ L.R.805 - Dindigul Anna District Tax Payers Sangam etc. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu etc., 1992 2 MLJ 299 - Chellammal Vs. Alandur Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, 1993 (2) MLJ 262 - Magdoom Sheriff alias Sultan Sheriff Vs. Kancheepuram Municipality by its Commissioner, Kancheepuram and 1970 (2) SCC - 803 THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. THE GUNTUR TOWN RATE PAYERS' ASSOCIATION ETC., and contended that the impugned notice will have set aside for not following the provisions of the Rent Control Act as well as the provisions of the District Municipality Act, particularly with reference to sections 82 to 84 of the said Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the rent fixed between landlord and tenant cannot be the basis and only the fair rent as provided under the Rent Control Act alone will have to be the basis for fixing the property tax. Therefore, the landlord prayed for the writ petition to be allowed.