ARULMIGU RAJAGOPALASAMY KOIL Vs. CUDDALORE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 78 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore viz. , Arulmigu Rajagopalasamy Koil, Cuddalore represented by its Executive Officer against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 10 of 1993 filed by the second defendant viz. , C. A. Rahim in and by which the Sub Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court viz. , the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore so far it relates to the second defendant C. A. Rahim.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 78 of 1991 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the enhancement of property tax from Rs. 1121. 40 to Rs. 6202/= per half year for the property bearing door No. 82-A Lawrence Road, Cuddalore, now newly numbered as 82-A-1 by paying court fee under section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act as the relief is incapable of valuation. The allegations in support of the suit are to the effect that enhancement of property tax has not been made according to law and in compliance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act or Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that without any basis, the property tax has been enhanced arbitrarily and without conducting any enquiry and passing final order of assessment, etc. , and that the second defendant also has been added as a party for the reason that the new assessment is because of the additional constructions put up by him upon the said property with first floor and rooms therein for running a lodge without due sanction of the appropriate authority for which separate proceedings has already been taken against the second defendant.

(3.) THE suit has been resisted by filing separate written statements by defendants 1 and 2 with the following material allegations. The enhancement of property tax has been made duly and legally and with basis inasmuch as there is separate construction of first floor with so many rooms capable of fetching huge rent and that the assessment of property tax in question in the suit is No. 16942 and it is a new assessment in the name of the second defendant based upon the consent given by the plaintiff and that the second defendant is not a trespasser and in fact, the second defendant is a lessee under the plaintiff as per the registered lease deed dated 11. 3. 1985 and that further the second defendant approached the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. , Mayavaram for obtaining permission to renew and put up new construction and the Deputy Commissioner also recommended for compliance of the request of the second defendant to the Commissioner, H. R. and C. E by his letter dated 29. 7. 1986 and that in the meanwhile, the second defendant approached the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple and obtained no objection certificate from the Executive Officer on 21. 8. 1985 and 30. 9. 1985 and thereupon applied to the Municipality with the application for the purpose of getting licence and permission to put up new construction and that the Municipality also approved the application and granted permission to put up new construction as requested by the second defendant and that therefore, new construction has been put up by the second defendant with the knowledge and consent of the Executive Officer of the plaintiff and so, the second defendant is not a trespasser and thereby the suit is liable to be dismissed.