TARA CHAND Vs. MUNICIPALITY REWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 17-1- 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 4671 of 1983 whereby he rejected the appellant's prayer for quashing the assessment of house tax made by Municipal Committee, Rewari (for short, 'the Municipal Committee') for the years 1980-81 and for issuance of a direction to levy house tax in accordance with the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Municipal Act') read with the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Rent Control Act').

(2.) The appellant owns property bearing No. 7685/6 situated within the municipal limits of Rewari. He is running a factory under the name and style of M/s. Bipan Metal Works. In 1981, the Municipal Committee assessed the annual value of the appellant's property at Rs. 60,000/-. The appellant contested the proposed assessment and filed objections dated 21-4-1981. After considering the same, Administrator of the Municipal Committee, vide his order dated 16-9-1981 passed under Section 69(2) of the Municipal Act, determined the annual value of the appellant's property at Rs. 36,000/-. Accordingly, house tax demand of Rs. 4050/- was created for the years 1980- 81 and 1981-82. The appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed by Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, who reduced the annual value of his property from Rs. 36.000/- to Rs. 30.000/-. C.W.P. No. 3181 of 1982 filed by the appellant questioning the determination of the annual value of his property and the demand of house tax was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge noticed the non-ob- stante clause contained in Section 2(1) of the Municipal Act, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Smt. Ratna Prabha, (1977) 1 SCR 1017 : (AIR 1977 SC 308) and Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the city of Ahmedabad, (1995) 4 JT(SC) 310 and held "it should thus be apparent that in the cases of the property situated in the city of Haryana and governed by the Haryana Municipal Act. question of applicability of the standard rent under the Rent Control Act would not arise."

(3.) Shri Rajesh Garg assailed the order of the learned single Judge by arguing that the view taken by him on the interpretation of Section 2(1) read with Section 69 of the Municipal Act is patently erroneous. Shri Garg emphasised that Section 2 of the Municipal Act does not preclude the fixation of rent in accordance with the Rent Control Act and, therefore, in respect of the properties which are in self-occupation of the owners, the words "expected to be let" should be treated as fair rent for the purpose of determination of annual value. He further argued that where the property is governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the fair rent ascertainable under that Act should be (Contd. on Col. 2) treated as annual value irrespective of the actual rent received by the owner. In support of his arguments, Shri Garg relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1980 SC 541, Dr. Balbir Singh v. M/s. M.C.D., AIR 1985 SC 339 and Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 315 : (AIR 2003 SC 2998) and a judgment of this Court in Banarasi Dass Mahajan v. State of Punjab, 1990 (1) Pun LR 1.