LAWS(ALL)-1970-1-25

NIRANJAN LAL BHARGAVA TRUST Vs. NAGAR MAHAPALIKA ALLAHABAD

Decided On January 29, 1970
Niranjan Lal Bhargava Trust Appellant
V/S
NAGAR MAHAPALIKA ALLAHABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the judgment of the Second Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, passed Under Section 476 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).

(2.) THE premises in dispute is a building, known as 1, Johnstonganj, Allahabad, comprising the Niranjan Cinema and a number of shops. The building is managed by the Niranjan Lal Bhargava Trust. In the quinquennial assessment for 1960 -65 the entire building was assessed to an annual value of Rs. 28,416. For the quinquennial period 1965 -70 the Nagar Mahapalika fixed the annual value of the premises at Rs. 45,000. The Trust filed an objection against the proposed assessment on 12 -12 -1964. By order dated 26 -2 -1965, Rs. 38,000 was fixed as the annual value of the premises in suit. An appeal Under Section 472 of the Adhiniyam was thereafter filed by the Assessee. The Judge, Small Causes, allowed the appeal and the annual value for purposes of assessment was maintained at Rs. 28,416. A second appeal Under Section 476 of the Adhiniyam was thereafter filed by the Mahapalika. The Second Additional District Judge, who disposed of the appeal, allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Subcommittee of the Mahapalika fixing the annual value at Rs. 38,000. Hence this revision. The order of the Sub committee dated 26 -2 -1965 is of two lines and is as under:

(3.) IT has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika that the order of the Mahapalika cannot be interfered with while exercising powers Under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance has been placed by him on Udai Bhan v. Lachman Dass : AIR 1955 All 666 which lays down that a wrong conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator did not amount to wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. The other case relied on by him is R.P. Mehta v. I.A. Sheth : AIR 1964 SC 1676. The only question involved in that case was whether under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, Section 13(i)(g) applied or Section 13(i)(hh) applied. While disposing of the question of law in that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court remarked that the High Court could not interfere in revision with a decision of the appellate court. The other cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Mahapalika are: C.L. Basra v. P.L. Basra : AIR 1960 All 590; Hari Shanker v. Girdhari Lal, AIR 1963 SC 698; Misrilal Parasmal v. Sadasiviah : AIR 1965 SC 553.