R C DIOCESE OF MADURAI THROUGH PROCURATOR REV FR A VEDAMANICKAM K PUDUR MADURAI Vs. SRIVILLIPUTTUR MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER SRIVILLIPUTTUR RAMNAD DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai made in A.S.No.54 if 1989, dated 24.1.1990 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Srivilliputtur in O.S. No.83 of 1986, dated 30.6.1988.

(2.) THE appellant, R.C. Diocese of Madurai, through Procurator Rev. Fr.A.Vedamanickam, K.Pudur, Madurai has filed a suit to declare that the assessment No.35/85-86 issued by the defendant Municipality fixing the half yearly tax Rs.8,660 was arbitrary and illegal and consequential permanent injunction with the following averments. THE property bearing D.No.115-A, Rajaji Road, Srivilliputtur belonged to the R.C. Diocese of Madurai. THE said property was recently constructed in the church compound and it was leased to the Canara Bank, Srivilliputtur and the said Bank was paying a rent of Rs.3,400 per month. THE property was assessed by assessment No.35. THE defendant Municipality without making any inspection of the building and without any basis fixed the rent at Rs.4,600 per month and had levied a half yearly tax of Rs.8,660. THE special notice issued was produced along with the plaint. THE plaintiff had to pay the tax for the purpose of appeal and filed an appeal against the said decision. THE appeal filed was dismissed by the Municipality. Under threat and coercion the Municipality had collected three half yearly tax amounting to Rs.25,780. THE plaintiff submitted that the assessment order was illegal and arbitrary. THE plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay to the defendant Municipality the lawful tax due. It has been held by the Supreme Court the basis of the Tax should be assessed according to the provisions in Rent Control Act. Admittedly, the defendant Municipality had not followed the procedure. Hence the assessment was illegal and has to be quashed. Hence, there arose a necessity for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration tat the assess made by Municipality was illegal and for consequential relief. THE plaintiff was always ready to pay the lawful tax due to the Municipality.

(3.) VEHEMENTLY opposing all the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the judgment of the lower appellate Court has got to be confirmed in view of the sound reasoning adduced therefor to sustain the assessment made by the respondent Municipality; that it is pertinent to note that the building belonged to the appellant was occupied by the Branch of the Canara Bank at Srivilliputtur and the communication received from the tenant wherein it was found that the monthly rent was Rs.4,600 was also formed basis for making the assessment therein and apart from that it is not correct on the part of the appellant to state that the building was not inspected; that the witness examined by the respondent Municipality had spoken to the fact that the inspection was made before fixing the annual rental value and making the assessment and the revision and appeal filed before the Municipality and the Special Officer were dismissed only after full consideration; that the respondent Municipality has followed strictly the provisions, rules and regulations provided under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act in fixing the tax; that the trial Court without proper consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties granted the relief which was rightly set aside by the first appellate Court and hence the judgment of the first appellate Court has got to be sustained.