SUSHMA RANI JHANJEE Vs. MARGAO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the Notice of Demand dated 18th March, 1993 issued by the respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 in respect of the house tax for the period from 1st February 1985 till 31st March, 1993 pertaining to the premises by name Tourist Hostel at Margao, bearing House No. 2140 situated in Ward No. 14 of Margao Municipal Council. The challenge is three fold: firstly, that the respondent No. 1 has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968 (hereinafter called as "the Municipality Act") before demanding the tax; secondly, that the primary liability of the house tax is that of the lessor and that there cannot be any demand for arrears of tax for a period exceeding one year from the occupier in terms of section 122 (3) of the Municipality Act; and thirdly, the rateable value cannot be more than the fair rent payable in terms of the provisions of the Rent Act in force in the State.

(2.) FEW facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the respondent No. 2 is the owner in respect of the premises in question wherein the petitioner had been running a restaurant pursuant to an agreement entered between the parties on 22nd April, 1985. Sometimes in or about June 1989, the respondent No. 2 initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as "public Premises Act") and by judgment and order dated 26th October 1989 passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the said premises. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 31st July, 1990 and the eviction of the petitioner ordered by the Estate Officer was confirmed. The petitioner thereupon sought to challenge the said eviction proceedings in the writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 219 of 1990 in this Court. The same was filed on 16-8-1990 and was disposed of in terms of the Minutes of the Order on 7-2-1992. In terms of the said order if the house tax was found to be payable in respect of the premises in question, the petitioner agreed to pay the same with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the liability. Thereafter, on 18th March 1993, a demand notice, the one which is under challenge in the present petition, was served upon respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1 demanding a total sum of Rs. 75,821. 80 as the house tax payable on that date in respect of the premises in question. By letter dated 16th March 1993, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner about the said demand notice and called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount payable under the said demand notice. Thereafter, on 27th August 1993, the petitioner was evicted from the said premises pursuant to the said order passed under the Public Premises Act.

(3.) AS regards the first ground of challenge, it is the contention of Shri V. P. Thali, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, that the respondent No. 1 has not followed the procedure contemplated under section 111 to section 120 in Chapter IX of the Municipality Act. Moreover, as rightly submitted by Shri V. B. Nadkarni, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1, the perusal of the petition discloses that the petitioner has nowhere disclosed as to what is the exact breach of procedure committed by the respondent No. 1 in the matter of imposition of house tax in relation to the premises in question. The petitioner has, after reproducing various provisions from section 111 to section 120 of the Municipality Act, stated in the petition that:-