THE DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal raises for decision a question as to the competency of the present suit for issue of a perpetual injunction restraining the Delhi Municipal Committee from realising the amount of Rs. 1,395 -9 -6 or any other sum on account of house -tax for the years 1951 -52 and 1953 in respect of the house in dispute.

(2.) SHRI Bhagwan Dass, Respondent is admittedly the owner of House No. 9589/1, Ward 16 of Delhi Municipal Committee on Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh. A demand for Rs. 1,395 -9 -6 as arrears of house -tax is outstanding against him for the years 1951 - 53. For the first time house -tax on his house was assessed in 1951 for the same year. This initial assessment as well as assessment for the subsequent years 1951 - 53 are assailed by Bhagwan Dass to be illegal and invalid on the ground that no notice of the intended assessment was given to him under Section 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The Municipal Committee, however, has pleaded that a notice, copy of which is Exhibit D. 1, on the present record and is dated 1st November, 1950, was actually sent by post under postal certificate to M/s. Bhagwan Dass -Birpal Singh, owners of the house, on that date. A copy of the stamp register maintained by the Municipal Committee (Exhibit D. 2) was also produced in support of this contention.

(3.) ON appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge affirmed the findings and conclusions of the Court of first instance and dismissed the appeal of the Municipal Committee. The only question which according to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge required determination in this litigation is as to whether service of notice by post can be sufficient to fix liability for payment of house -tax assessment for the year 1951. After considering the effect of Section 65 and Section 215 of the Municipal Act, the learned Judge observed that in the instant case where the owners of the property had their place of abode or business within the limits of the Municipal Committee, Delhi, Section 215 Clauses (3) and (4) were not attracted. According to the learned Judge, it was Section 215 Clause (1) of the Act which was applicable to the instant case and service having not been effected in accordance with this provision, assessment was bad. The Judge further remarked that the alleged notice, dated 1st November, 1950, said to have been sent to M/s. Bhagwan Dass -Birpal Singh was also not shown on the present record to have been correctly addressed to them. The address shown on the copy of the notice, Exhibit D. 1, and the certificate of posting, Exhibit D. 2, merely mentioned the addressee to be M/s. Bhagwan Dass and Birpal Singh, Dev Nagar, Block No. 10, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The house No. was not given and as the learned Senior Subordinate Judge expressly observed, the Plaintiff was not questioned whether the address given in Exhibit D. 1, and Exhibit D. 2 was his or Birpal Singh 's correct address. The Plaintiff had denied the receipt of the said notice. The lower Appellate Court after considering this circumstance came to the positive conclusion that it could not be said that the notice, Exhibit D. 1, had actually reached Bhagwan Dass or Birpal Singh. As already mentioned, the appeal was dismissed and the decree of the Court of first instance affirmed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge.