RATNAPRABHA DHANDA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE

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 'Viram Lodge' located on the Ravindranath Tagore Marg, 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 M.P. 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.) THE contention of the petitioners, which was advanced before the Commissioner and, in appeal, before the Additional District Judge and which was repeated before us, was that the annual value of the building determined in accordance with section 138 (d) of the Act could not exceed the annual value determined according to the standard rent in respect of the building under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961; and that the Commissioner did not at all take into account the "standard rent" of the building and the learned Additional District Judge erred in holding that having regard to the language of section 138 (b) the "standard rent" in respect of the building under the 1961 Act was not relevant and could not be taken into consideration. It was further submitted that the annual value of the building was determined by the Commissioner in utter violation of section 138 (b) and (c); that he erred in proceeding on the basis that each room in the building could fetch rent from Rs. 25 to Rs. 62.90 and including in the area of the building which could be let out the area of bath -rooms, passages, verandahs, open spaces, etc., and that he also did not give due weight to annual rental value of properties in the neighbourhood.