SURJIT KAUR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Petitions Nos. 3991 and 3990 of 1980 relate to two adjacent properties which have been assessed to house-tax under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short, "the Act"), by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Identical questions of law and fact have been raised in these two petitions and are, therefore, being disposed of through this common order. For facility of reference, the facts stated in CWP No. 3991 of 1980 only are adverted to.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY qua the property in question, the annual rateable value was determined at Rs. 1,600 till the year 1979. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 103 (D) of the Act indicating therein that the said value of the property was proposed to be raised to Rs. 12,000 per annum. The petitioner filed objections to this notice including the one that since the property was situated in an area where the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was applicable, the rateable value of the said property had to be determined in the light of the standard rent under that Act. Though in the light of the objections, the rateable annual value of the property was reduced to Rs. 7,920, but the above-noted plea of the petitioner was concurrently rejected by the authorities below. It is the very same contention which is urged before me now.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that these petitions have to be allowed, in the light of the following observations by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, [1980] 122 ITR 700 ; AIR 1980 SC 541 (headnote of AIR) :