E. PADMANABHAN AND ORS. Vs. THE TIRUCHIRAPALLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs having lost in both courts have preferred the second appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the demands for payment of property tax made by the defendant -Municipality for the half years commencing from 30th September, 1969 and ending 30th September, 1971 on the basis of an annual rental exceeding Rs.9,000 is illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from collecting the amount as per the demands. It is seen from the pleadings that the plaintiffs were running a hotel in the ground -floor with respect to premises No.4 -A, but the actual No. is 4E. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant have proceeded on the basis that the property of the plaintiffs is situate at 4 -E, Dindigul Road. Tiruchi. The defendant also admits the property in question being the property for which the plaintiffs have filed the suit. The plaintiffs rented out the suit premises to one Kuppanna Gounder by means of a registered rent deed, dated 23rd June, 1969 for an annual rent of Rs. 750. On 28th August, 1969 the plaintiffs received a demand notice for Rs. 2,343 -78 as the property tax for the half year ending 30th September, 1969. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Executive Authority and to the Council but they did not succeed. For the bait -year ending 31st March, 1970, also, a demand notice for the same amount was received. The plaintiffs were served with a demand notice on 10th October, 1970 for the half -year ending 30th September, 1970 demanding a sum of Rs. 2722,47, as property tax. For the half -year ending 31st March, 1971, a similar notice has been received. For the half -year ending 30th September, 1971, also a similar notice has been received. The assessment of Rs. 2,722.47 per half -year is based on an annual rental value of Rs. 19,368. The annual rental value fixed by the Municipality is arbitrary and whimsical. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the above said reliefs stated supra.

(2.) The defendants in their written statement contend that the annual rent received by the plaintiffs exceeded Rs. 5,500. The properties belonging to the plaintiffs were inadequately assessed. The plaintiffs were receiving Rs. 1,240 per month by way of rent for the 27 rooms and three shops. The then Municipal Commissioner fixed the annual rental value at Rs. 17,868 after inspection. Subsequently, the plaintiffs put up additional constructions by way of constructing of two shops en a monthly rental of Rs. 125. After inspection and after ascertaining the rents paid by the tenants the annual rental value was raised to Rs. 19,368. The lease pleaded by the plaintiffs is not true. It is only for the purpose of reducing the tax payable by them. It is true that the property was originally assessed at Rs. 926,27. The same was revised to Rs. 2,343.78 per quarter since the same was inadequately assessed.

(3.) The trial court found that the assessment towards the property tax made by the defendant is legal and the plaintiffs have no case. Therefore, learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. Against the dismissal of the suit the plaintiffs preferred an appeal AS No. 521 of 1973 before the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, who after going through the oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the lower court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiffs preferred this second appeal.