SNEHALATA KHAG Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is widow of late owner of the property at premises 103A, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata - 700 009. Mr. Raut, learned advocate appears on her behalf and files affidavit-of-service. He submits, his client is admittedly 50% owner of the property. Application for probate of Will made by her late husband has become a contentious cause. Order of appointment of joint receivers in the probate proceeding was appealed against. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 11th September, 2012 modified the order appointing receiver, for petitioner to be appointed sole receiver over the property. He draws attention to receipt dated 16th March, 2018 issued by the Corporation acknowledging payment of Rs.32,761/- towards rates and taxes for 4th quarter 2017-2018 in respect of the property. He submits, respondent no.4/bank is only tenant in the property occupying a major portion thereof. Referring to annexure "P-1", being letter dated 5th May, 2010 sent by Assistant General Manager to Senior Manager regarding payment on account of KMC tax and commercial surcharge from April, 2007 to December, 2009, sanctioned at Rs.2,29,658/- he submits, the bank did not make the payment. In the circumstances, he seeks interference against impugned notice signed on 26th June, 2018, for rent attachment. He submits, claim in excess of Rs.61 lakhs as outstanding is an unsubstantiated sum based on purported revision in annual valuation, representation against which has been made by his client, a helpless lady of 85 years. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Anthony C. Leo - Versus - Nandlal Bal Krishnan reported in (1996) 11 SCC 376, paragraph 28.

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation. He draws attention to direction, in said Division Bench order, for payment of Kolkata Municipal Corporation dues on rates and taxes in respect of the property, by leaving it open to petitioner / receiver to meet such statutory obligations by withdrawing money from the account to be opened by her in the bank (tenant). He too relies on Anthony C. Leo (supra), inter alia, on paragraph 29 to submit, statutory right of his client to attach rent payable by occupier cannot be curtailed on plea of petitioner of having been appointed as receiver over the property. He also relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Siliguri Municipality - Versus - Amalendu Das reported in AIR 1984 SC 653, paragraphs 3 to 5. He submits, therein Supreme Court had circumscribed power of Court to interfere with demand for recovery made by the municipality.

(3.) Affidavit-of-service shows bank has been served but goes unrepresented. Documents disclosed in the petition show sanction, by the bank, of Rs.2,29,658/- against payment of KMC tax and commercial surcharge for period of April, 2007 to December, 2009. Petitioner in paragraph 16 has said bank failed and neglected to pay monthly rental, occupier's share of municipal taxes and commercial surcharge, in compliance with agreed terms and conditions embodied in lease deed dated 8th September, 2011. The other document relied upon by petitioner is said receipt for tax paid in respect of 4th quarter 2017- 2018. Taking these two documents together and petitioner's aforesaid statement in paragraph 16, what transpires is that upto December, 2009, at least, taxes were paid. In between there may have been default and enhancement of annual valuation. This information should have been uploaded in the systems of the Corporation. This, because the Corporation issued receipt on 16th March, 2018 for 4th quarter 2017-2018. The receipt, if issued because the information was not fed into its system then the information regarding accumulation of arrears has to be on discovery on or after 16th March, 2018 as made by the Corporation itself. On perusal of impugned notice for rent attachment, Court is unable to discern particulars regarding basis of the demand for arrear tax at excess of Rs.61 lakhs.