MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BATHINDA Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 19.5.1987, whereby the Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda allowed the suit of the plaintiff against the demand of house tax for the year 1985-86 and restrained the Municipal Committee from recovering Rs. 225/- as house tax arrears for the year 1985-86. The said order has been upheld in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner of property No. 2948/R-18 and had been paying house tax to the defendant regularly at the rate of Rs. 162/- per year and deposited house tax upto 1984-85. The Municipal Committee for the year 1985-86 demanded the house tax to the tune of Rs. 225/- per year without any fresh assessment inspite of the fact that there was no addition or alteration in the building occupied by him and there was no justifiable reason to increase the demand from Rs. 162/- to Rs. 225/-. The said suit was resisted on the ground that the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act,1911 (hereinafter called as "the Act")and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Accordingly, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was an admission on behalf of DW-1 Sampat Singh, Tax Inspector that no fresh notice of assessment had been issued to the plaintiff and in the absence of any fresh assessment the claim of the house tax at the rate of Rs.225/- per year was not maintainable and plaintiff could only be asked to pay Rs.162/- per year till the fresh assessment is made in accordance with law. On the question of maintainability of want of service of notice under Section 49 of the Act and bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, it was held that in suit for injunction no such notice was required to be served in view of the urgency involved. And the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit as this was not pressed by the Municipal Committee, accordingly, the suit was decreed as noticed above,