ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of eight writ petitions bearing Nos. 11503, 11520 of 1988, 1447, 1448, 1450,1451, 1452 and 1453 of 1989 titled: Ashok Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Anr. Vinod Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Anr. Harbans Lal v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Bishan Lal v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Bimla Devi v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Vijay Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Wazir Singh v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Ors. Des Raj Amrit Lal v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and ors, respectively, as in the opinion of this Court a common question of law and facts is involved in all these writ petitions and I am taking the facts for the disposal of all the writ petitions from writ petition No. 11503 of 1988 titled Ashok Kumar v. The Municipal Committee, Khanna and Anr. . '

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 1. and 2 vide which the house-tax has been imposed upon the property of the petitioner. Ashok Kumar, has alleged in the writ petition that he is owner of the property bearing No. B. III-74, situated on the Railway Road, Khanna. The front portion of the property which is all vacant site was taken on rent and he raised construction over it. The petitioner pays rent to the Municipal Committee for the vacant land. The petitioner gave the shop on rent to M/s Deepak Traders at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 vide rent deed dated 2. 9. 1983. The total rent of the property was Rs. 50.00 per month, so the annual rental value as warranted by the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, did not exceed Rs. 1200.00 per year and no house tax was payable regarding this property. He did not pay house tax of the property from 1983-84 to 1987-88. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 15. 12. 1987 that the assessment of the property for the purposes of house tax was liable to be changed. Notice was issued under section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The notice did not specify as to on what account, the assessment was liable to be changed. It has been alleged by the petitioner that before the issuance of the notice the Assessing Authority did not apply the mind. Notice is Annexure P. 2 on the record. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply in the shape of objections and it was submitted that the petitioner had given part of the property on rent to M/s Deepak Traders and the monthly rent does not exceed Rs. 50.00 per month. He has not made any change or alteration in the property. There was no house tax for the property earlier and, therefore, the house-tax could not be imposed. It was also mentioned in the reply that front portion of the property was owned by the Committee and petitioner was only a tenant. The grouse of the petitioner is that his objections were not considered on merits by respondent No. 1. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Khanna reduced the rental value from Rs. 15,600.00 to Rs. 6000.00, but the objections of the petitioner were not dealt. The assessment was not made by applying the criteria for determining the fair rent under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2. Inspite of the fact that written arguments were submitted detailing the case of the petitioner, by a creptic order his appeal was dismissed vide order Annexure P. 6. Now the challenge has been given by the petitioner Ashok Kumar to Annexures P. 4 and P. 6 mainly on the grounds that the authorities while making a demand for the enhancement of the house tax did not comply with the provisions of section 4 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and in this manner impugned orders Annexures P. 4 and P. 6 are illegal. Similar is the grouse of other writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions to the effect that respondents while assessing the house tax did not comply with the provisions of fair rent.

(3.) IN the other writ petitions, the stand of the Municipal Committee is common with the stand taken up by the Committee in the writ petition of Ashok Kumar, but one thing is clearly established from different replies of the Committee that while making a demand for the enhanced house-tax, the respondent Municipal Committee did not comply with the provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act.