VIJAY KUMAR Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE owner of building No. N-89, situated at Anoop Nagar Extension, indore, has preferred this revision against the order of Assessment of Annual Letting value at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- (Minimum Rs. 3,000/- ). i. e. Rs: 27,000/- per year and assessed the tax of Rs. 5,400/- per year. Against the order of assesment, an appeal was also preferred, which was dismissed.

(2.) THE short contention of Shri P. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant is that a notice dated 6-4-1985, was issued under Sections 146/153, of the Madhya pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the building was assessed to tax from 1-6-1984 and the tax has been increased on the basis of the rent being realised by the applicant/owner. After the receipt of the notice objections were filed but the applicant was not heard nor any evidence was recorded and the objections were dismissed. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. In an appeal, the photocopy of the lease-deed of the building of the applicant, dated 23-5-1984, was filed, with an application under Order 41, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the learned appellate Court rejected the application only on the ground that it was the duty of the applicant to inform under Section 154, of the Act, about increase of rent. The appellate Court also held that in the lease-deed, rs. 1,500/-have been shown as the monthly rent of the building and Rs. 1,000/- as the charges for fixtures and furniture, such as fans, almirahs, light, washing basin etc. It is not mentioned in the lease-deed that there are any machineries of which the charges of rs. 1,000/- per month are being charged. Hence, the lease-deed was not considered as a necessary document to decide the appeal. According to Shri Verma, the approach of the learned appellate Court was wrong as the amount is charged as rent of charges could have been decided only after recording of evidence. Another contention of Shri verma is that the property tax could not have been. charged retrospectively.

(3.) SHRI S. J. Dhanji, learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, supported the assessment and also the order of the Appellate Court. In addition to this, the learned counsel submitted that under Section 154, of the Act, it is duty of the owner of the building to furnish information in writing as provided in section 144, of the Act in respect of subsequent increase in rent. Shri Dhanji, further contended that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no necessity to afford an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.