SHIV PAL SAGAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarvshri Sham Lal, Shadi Lal and Brij Lal are owners of plot bearing No. B-II/1854-1855, G. T. Road, Ludhiana. The annual rental value of this plot was assessed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (for short the Corporation) for the first time on 19-11-1979. On noticing some additions/alterations in the existing unit in the year 1993-94 the Corporation issued to the owners a notice under S. 103 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) proposing to enhance the annual rental value of the property from Rs. 16,980.00 per annum to Rs.2,98,800.00 per annum. This notice was issued on 20-1-1994. The owners did not file any objections and, therefore, the annual rental value of the unit was finalized at Rs.2,98,800.00 per annum on 24-2-1994. Subsequently, the owners added second, third and fourth floors to the building as a result whereof it became necessary for the Corporation to issue another notice to them under S. 103 of the Act on 28-12-1994 for amending the existing assessment of annual rental value of Rs.2,98,880.00 per annum. This notice was served by way of affixation as personal service was refused by the owners repeatedly. Since the owners did not again file any objections to this notice, the assessment was finalised on 24-3-1995 and the annual rental value of the building was enhanced to Rs.45,80,400.00 per annum. The petitioner is a tenant in the property and is running a hotel therein under the name and style of Sagar Hotel and claims that he is paying a rent of Rs.1,80,000.00 per annum to the owners. The Corporation assessed the house tax on the basis of the annual rental value as determined and sent the bills to the owners of the property every year but no payment has been made to the Corporation so far. A final notice was then sent to them requiring them to deposit a sum of Rs.40,93,098.60 Paise in the Treasury of the Corporation failing which they were informed that recovery would be made by confiscating the property under S. 138 of the Act. It is against this notice that the petitioner who is a tenant in the property has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the same primarily on the ground that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing nor was any notice issued to him before the assessment was made.

(2.) In response to the notice of motion the Corporation has filed its reply controverting the averments made in the writ petition and it is pleaded that the petitioner who is a tenant in the building is not entitled to any notice of hearing at the time of assessment proceedings and that he has no locus standi to challenge the notice issued to the owners seeking to recover the arrears of house tax. It is averred that when the owners received the notice dated 20-1-1994 they did not raise any objection and the assessment of the annual rental value of the unit was finalised at Rs.2,98,800.00 per annum on 24-2-1994 and that Shri Brij Lal, one of the owners, challenged the levy of house tax by filing a civil suit which after contest by the Corporation was dismissed in default on 16-1-1998.

(3.) From the rival contentions of the parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner who is a tenant in the premises has a right to challenge the assessment proceedings when the owners of the building were issued notice at the time of assessment. The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of Ss. 97, 101 and 103 of the Act the relevant parts of which are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :-