KEHAR SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owns a house in Phagwara, which is in his self-occupation. The Municipal Committee assessed the house tax under the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner challenged the levy of the tax in appeal. The Deputy Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 28th September, 1976, copy of which is Annexure 'P-4' with the writ petition, came to the conclusion that the annual letting value of the house, where the rent has not been fixed by the Rent Controller under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the house was occupied by the owner, has to be assessed keeping in view the market annual letting value of the property. The Deputy Commissioner followed the decision of this Court in Lt. Col. Micheal A.R. Skinner and others v. The Municipal Committee, Hansi and others, 1969 71 PunLR 205.

(2.) It cannot be disputed that the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable in law. It has been authoritatively held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, the annual value of a building would be the gross annual rent at which such house or building may reasonably be expected to let from year to year. It has been held that if the property is situate in a town where the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act are applicable in that case, the annual letting value shall have to be determined keeping in view the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, i.e. the standard rent which can be fixed even though no order has been passed for fixing the standard rent because the property is self-occupied. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor and others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, 1980 1 SCC 685.

(3.) In view of what has been stated above, the Bench decision of this Court in Lt. Col. Micheal A.R. Skinner's case no more holds the field. Accordingly the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner is quashed. Consequently, the order of re-assessment passed in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the demand notice shall also stand quashed. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to re-hear the appeal of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. We order accordingly. The parties have been directed through their counsel to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 19th May, 1980. I agree. Ordered accordingly.