GARHWAL JAL SANSTHAN Vs. SARDAR PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost in both the courts below Garhwal Jal Sansthan has filed the present second appeal in this Court. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for a declaration of a rebate at the rate of 25% in the water tax levied against him on the basis of the water tax already assessed against him. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of House No. 84, Reethamandi, Dehradun. At the time of valuation for the periods relating to years 1979 to 1983 and 1984 to 1986, the said house was assessed at annual value of Rs. 1980. At that time, the house was let out. Subsequently, it is the admitted case of the parties that the tenants had vacated and the house was occupied solely by the owner thereof for residential purpose. In this changed situation, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application dated 8-5-1985 for rebate in accordance with proviso to sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of section 53 of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) SINCE the defendant refused to make necessary rebate, the plaintiff-respondent had filed the said suit for declaration that in the changed situation he is entitled to 25% rebate in the water tax already assessed against him. The relief for recovery of interest on the amount of said rebate was also prayed for. The parties were at issue on both the aforesaid two points. SINCE the facts of the case were not disputed, both the courts below, after interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act, have come to a conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a declaration for the rebate prayed for and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The defendant-appellant was directed to pay the amount of interest also.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has also raised a point that the suit is barred by section 30 of the Act. Admittedly, the parties were not at issue on this plea in the courts below. In my opinion, this plea not only necessitates investigation, for bringing on record, certain facts but also whether the said section itself as worded is valid or not and if so, to what extent ? All this has not been done in the present case. I therefore, refuse to entertain this plea at this stage.