RAM KRISHAN Vs. NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the owners of house No. 54/20, Canal Road, Kanpur, and are themselves living in A. The house has been in existence in the present form since, at least, the year 1943. For the quinquennial assessment for the period 1943-48 under the V.P. Municipalities Act, the annual value of the house was fixed at Rs. 2,400.00; for the quinquennial assessment for 1948-53 the annual value was fixed at Rs. 3,096/- for the quinquennial assessment for 1953-59 the annual value remained at the same figure and for the quinquennial assessment for 1958-63 the annual value was fixed at Rs. 4,200.00. When the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, came into existence, it also assessed the house for 1963-68 at the annual value of Rs. 4,200.00. For, the quinquennial assessment for 1968-73 the Nagar Mahapalika proposed the enhancement of the annual value to Rs. 9,6001/- and a notice of the proposals was served on the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections against the proposals. The objections were partly allowed and the annual value was fixed at Rs. 5,400.00. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Judge of Small Causes. Kanpur. The appeal was partly allowed and the annual value was fixed at Rs. 4,800.00 The petitioners thereupon filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge Kanpur. The Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal and .confirmed the annual value fixed by the Judge of Small Causes. It is against these orders that the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(2.) "Annual value" is defined in Sec. 174 of the U.P. Nagar Maha-palika Adhiniyam, 1959, as follow :

(3.) It is said that Sec. 127(a) (of the Calcutta Municipalities Act) does not contemplate the actual rent received by a landlord but a hypothetical rent which he can reasonably be expected to receive if the building is let. So stated the proposition is unexceptionable. Hypothetical rent may be described as a rent which a landlord may reasonably be expected to get in the open market. But an open market cannot include a. 'black market', a term euphemistically used to commercial transactions entered into between parties in defiance of law. In that situation, a statutory limitation of rent circumstances the scope of the bargain in the market. In no circumstance the hypothetical rent can exceed that limit." In the case of Niranjan Lal Bhargava Trust Vs. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad 1970 A.L.J. 332 (Civil Revision No. 687 of 1968 decided on Jan. 29, 1970 , Trivedi, J. has observed :