SOM DATTA BUKDERS LTD Vs. KANPUR JAL SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 25-8-2001 by which the application 5-C for grant of interim injunction filed by it, was rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant has filed O.S. No. 1212 of 2002 praying that it be declared that all the demand bills of house tax, water tax and drainage tax made by the defendants for the period 1993 to 2001 in respect of the premises bearing No. 15/299 are void ab initio. Another prayer made in the suit is that a decree of permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from raising a demand of house tax amounting to Rs. 6,26,801.00 and water tax and drainage tax amounting to Rs.21,88,377.00 in respect of the aforesaid premises.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that premises No. 15/299 is a Shopping Plaza having 97 shops attached to Hotel Landmark. The shops were assessed to house tax by the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur (defendant No. 2) which was challenged by the plaintiff by filing 97 appeals. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar allowed the appeals by the judgment and order dated 24-3-1995 and quashed the assessment with the observation that the same may be done in acco accordance with Section 174 (a) of U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The defendant No. 2 filed a single appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar being appeal No. 13 of 1995, which is still pending. The Nagar Nigam has not determined the annual value of the premises in accordance with Section 174 (a) of the Adhiniyam but is issuing bills for house tax. The Kanpur Jal Sansthan-defendant No. 1 has not made any assessment in accordance with Section 53 of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as WSS Act). However it issued bill dated 15-11-2000 for Rs. 21,88,377.00 towards water tax and sewerage tax for premises No.15/299 (97 shops). According to the plaintiff, the demand made by the defendants was contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam and WSS Act. The suit was, accordingly, filed for the relief mentioned above.