NAGAR MAHAPALIKA OF THE CITY OF KANPUR Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ALLAHABAD DIVISION AT KANPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur for quashing the order dated 17-5-58 of the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division allowing the appeal of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Naronhas) who are owners of the premises in question.

(2.) The admitted or proved facts are that the Naronhas are owners of premises No. 87/9, Kalpi Road, Kanpur in which they were running a factory called the Naronha Model Tannery. From the middle of 1946 to the middle of 1953 the premises remained on rent as factory with third parties. On 1-7-1953 the Naronhas rented out the above premises together with the machinery fitted therein to a firm known as "Super Tannery" on a rental of Rs. 750.00 per month. Since then the lessee firm has been carrying on the same trade and business in the premises in question. For the period 1948 to 1953 the petitioner Mahapalika had assessed the premises at Rs. 4,800.00 per annum on the basis of the then gross annual rent received by the owners. Likewise for the period 1953-58 the Mahapalika assessed the premises at Rs. 7,800.00 calculated on the gross annual rent received by the owners during that period. In other words, the Mahapalika Kanpur had been treating the premises in question as an ordinary building, within the meaning of Sec. 140(1) (b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and not as a factory within the meaning of sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Sec. 140 of the Act.

(3.) When the question of determining the annual value for the period of 1958-63 arose, wisdom seems to have dawned on the petitioner Mahapalika with the result that this time they assessed the building as a factory within the meaning of Sec. 140(1) (a), because under this sub-clause the process of determining annual value was favourable to the Mahapalika. Under this sub-clause the annual value has to be fixed at a proportion not exceeding five per centum of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present costs of erecting the building to the estimated value of the land appurtenant thereto; while under sub-clause (b) the annual value is arrived at on the basis of the gross annual rent for which it is actually let or where the building is not let out or in the opinion of the Board is let for a sum less than its fair letting value, might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. Calculating the annual value under sub-clause (a) the petitioner Mahapalika worked it out at Rs. 1,80,000.00, which was reduced by the Executive Officer to Rs. 1.50,500.00, on the objection of the contesting respondents to the effect that the value of the land and building had been excessively calculated by the Mahapalika.