HARINDER KAUR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to order dated 27.3.1985 (Annexure P.1) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the annual rental value of the property of the petitioners was increased from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 24,240/- and order dated 11.6.1985 (Annexure P.2), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal against order (Annexure P.1) was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are owners of property No. 192/A, 11/2 situated at Shant Nagar, Bhatinda. The property in question was assessed to house tax for the first time in the year 1983 at annual rental value of Rs. 2000/-. The annual rental value, so assessed, continued upto the year 1984-85. For the year 1985-86, respondent No.1 served a notice for enhancement of annual rental value from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 24240/-. The petitioners filed objections to the proposed enhancement. However, rejecting the same and ignoring the provisions of law, assessment of annual rental value was made at Rs. 24240/-. Aggrieved against the order, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed on 11.6.1985 upholding the assessment.

(3.) THE contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that for the purpose of determination of annual rental value, the principles laid down under the Rent Control Legislation were to be applied, which the respondents have failed to do. He referred to the judgments in Kehar Singh v. The Municipal Committee, Phagwara and another, 1980 Revenue Law Reporter 491, Punjab Concast Steels Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and another, 1985(2) RCR(Rent) 562 : 1984 Revenue Law Reporter 394 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and another, 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 537 : 1997(1) Punjab Law Reporter 545.