SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. B RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 31-3-89 in A.S.No.18/88,on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam.

(2.) The appellant-defendant is Srikakulam Municipality and is represented by its Commissioner. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit OS. No. 142 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam, for declaration that the tax enhanced in respect of house bearing Asst. No. 4451 of Srikakulam Municipality bearing 8-9-27, 8-9-28/1, situated in Chittaranjan Street, from Rs. 28/- to Rs.316/- for half year is arbitrary, unjust and consequentially for an injunction restraining the defendant-Municipality from collecting the enhanced tax, and for costs of the suit

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant-Municipal authorities while assessing and revising the property tax have failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 87(2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, and therefore, the levy of property tax of Rs. 316/- per half year by enhancing the tax from Rs. 28/- is illegal and sought injunction against the defendant- Municipality. The defendant-Municipality contested the matter by filing written statement. In the written statement it was averred that the Commissioner of the Municipality personally inspected the suit house on 25-9-83 and enquired the tenants of the house regarding the rents that were being paid by them to the owner. Three portions of the house were let out to three different persons, and they reported that each of them were paying Rs. 75/- per month, and that the plaintiff was residing in a nearby thatched house measuring 5.80 X 7.00 mts. The defendant felt that the rents proposed were reasonable by taking into account the situation of the building, rents prevailing in the locality etc., and accordingly assessed the monthly rental value at Rs. 225/-. It was further averred that the plaintiff also filed revision petition against the revised property assessment by the Municipality. The revisional authority dismissed the revision filed by the plaintiff, and that though the plaintiff had the remedy of preferring an appeal against the dismissal of the revision, chose to file the suit seeking the relief as indicated above.