RATNAPRABHA Vs. S R GHANEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, which has come up before us on a reference by one of us, is directed against a decision of the Additional District Judge, Indore, rejecting an appeal preferred by the petitioners against a determination of the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, fixing the valuation of a hotel building owned by the petitioners, for the purpose of assessment to property-tax levied by the Indore Municipal Corporation, at Rs. 43, 405. 20.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts are that the petitioners own a hotel building known as Tirana Lodge' located on the Ravindranath Tagore Marg, c. r. No. 711 of 1966 decided on 26-9-1968 against the order of S. R. Ghanekar, ii Addl. Dist. Judge, Indore, dated 29-10-1966, in c. M. Appeal No. 72 /66. N.. Indore. In 1956 the annual gross rental value of this building was determined at Rs. 6,600 and on that basis, property tax of Rs. 464 was levied. On 3rd June 1965 the Assessment Officer of the Corporation revised the annual value of the building and fixed it at Rs 43,405.20. The petitioners then preferred objections under section 147 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) to this valuation, which were heard by the Commissioner who, overruling them, reached the conclusion that the annual value of the building was Rs. 43,405.20. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Additional District. Judge under section 149 of the Act, which was dismissed. The applicants have now filed this revision petition under section 392 of the Act.

(3.) AT the outset, it must be stated that at the time of the hearing of this petition, none appeared on behalf of the Corporation. Consequently, we were deprived of the benefit of arguments on behalf of the Corporation in justification of the valuation fixed by the Commissioner. However, after hearing Shri Dhanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, and considering the provisions of section 138 (b) and (c), it is plain to us that the annual value of the building determined by the Commissioner and upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal is based on no principle. Clauses (b) and (c) of section 138 are plain enough. According to clause (b), the annual value of any building is deemed to be that gross annual rent of the building, which it might reasonably be expected to fetch if let out at the time of assessment, less an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary for the maintenance of the building. If the annual value of any building cannot be determined under clause (b), then it has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of clause (c) of section 138. Under that clause, the annual value of any building is deemed to be five per cent on the sum obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building after making a reasonable allowance on account of depreciation.