PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. NAGAR PALIKA ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28.9.1986. 12.4.1989 and 6.4.1990, passed by the Nagarpalika authorities, Aligarh.

(2.) The short point involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is liable to be assessed for payment of tax on the annual letting value of the building under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 140 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

(3.) Admittedly the petitioner had let out the building to the State Bank of India for purposes other than residence. The submission of Mr. V. K. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the building had been let out for commercial purposes, as such, the annual valuation be made on the basis of Section 140 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act of 1916. The submission of the petitioner is that since tenancy of the State Bank of India, which is a public body, is for public purpose, the valuation should be on the basis of Section 140 (1) (a) of the Act. Mr. Barman referred to a decision in. Nagar Nigam, Kanpurv. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and another, 1998 (32) ALR 640. and submits that the provisions of Sections 140 and 174 of the U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 are part materia and should be construed in the same way. He argued that 'other such buildings' used in Section 140 (1) (a) of the Act brings in a building which has been let out to a Bank for a commercial and public purpose. He submits that Section 174 of the Act has only clarified the position which was prevailing under Section 140 (1) (a) of the Act where' the expression was 'other such building'. According to him, other such building would include the building let out to a public institution which is not let out normally.