MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. RAM LUBHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that property in dispute was an evacuee property and vested in the Central Government. Before independence, the Mohamdins were in possession of the property in dispute and they had installed a brick-kiln. After the independence, the plaintiff took the property on rent @ Rs. 100/- from the respondent. The Municipal Corporation demanded house tax from the plaintiff vide bill dated 26.3.1976 for the years 1975 to 1979 amounting to Rs. 1,782.50. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned trial Court for restraining the defendant not to recover the said amount on the ground that the property is exempted from the house tax.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and controverted the allegations and raised number of preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the property in dispute was not an evacuee property and, therefore, the plaintiff is liable to make the payment of house tax. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.1981. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 18.3.1981, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jallandhar, who, vide judgment dated 31.1.1983 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit against the defendant by reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court.

(3.) MR . T.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge has not appreciated the evidence and law in its right perspective. He submitted that under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act (for short, "the Act"), the house tax is leviable not only on the property owned by the owner but also on the person who possessed it as a tenant. He submitted that admittedly the respondent was in possession of the property in dispute which was owned by Central Government. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the house tax. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon Delhi Golf Club Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 257; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 58; Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/s. Bharat Brothers, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 96; Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others, AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 239; Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, 1986 RRR 330 and Municipal Committee, Khanna v. Sub Divisional Officer (C) Samrala, 1986 RRR 334. Municipal Committee, Khanna v. Sub Divisional Officer (C) Samrala, 1986 RRR 334.