SADHU RAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner who owns Premises No. 180/1/2 in Anardana Chowk, Patiala, has challenged the legality and the validity of the proceedings taken under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by which the property owned by him has been assessed at Rs. 8,700/- per annum for the purpose of annual rental value. According to the petitioner the property was assessed for annual rental value at Rs. 2,340/- per annum in the year 1976-77 under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of assessment of house-tax. He has further stated that the petitioner did not make any additional alteration or improvement in the premises and that the upper portion thereof which was in possession of the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- per month since the year 1960 continues to remain in his possession at this very rent. Notice under Section 61 of the Act was served upon the petitioner for the proposed enhancement which was contested on the ground that earlier the assessment did not suffer from any mistake and that the notice did not indicate at all as to why enhancement was proposed particularly when he did not make any addition or improvement in the property and more particularly so when no rent of the upper portion of the premises was increased. The original order passed has not been attached with the writ petition. However, the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in which the order passed by the Administrator Municipality, Patiala dated 14.2.1978 merged, has been attached as Annexure P-1. By the impugned order Annexure P-1 the rental value assessed by the assessing authority, that is, the Administrator Municipality was found to be excessive and the same was reduced from Rs. 725/- to 650/- per month. In other words, the rental value of the premises has been reduced to Rs. 7,800/- from Rs. 8,700/- per annum. It is in these circumstances that the legality and the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Annexure P-1 and the order of the Administrator, Municipality Patiala dated 14.2.1978 has been challenged.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala with one stroke of pen by saying that Rs. 725/- per month appears to be on the higher side reduced it to Rs. 650/- per month or in other words, the gross annual rental value has been reduced from Rs. 8,700/- to Rs. 7,800/- per annum. It is in these circumstances that the legality and the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Annexure P-1 and the order of the Administrator, Municipality Patiala dated 14.2.1978 has been challenged. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala with one stroke of pen by saying that Rs. 725/- per month appears to be on the higher side reduced it to Rs. 650/- per month or in other words, the gross annual rental value has been reduced from Rs. 8,700/- to Rs. 7,800/- per annum. In my view, the adoption of this course is untenable. The annual letting value of the house was to be determined on the basis of the principles of the fair rent which again is determinable under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . No such consideration that the premises are situated in Anardana Chowk can prevail with the authorities for enhancing the annual rental value. In similar circumstances, this Court in Kidar Nath and another v. Municipal Committee, Ludhiana and others,1974 76 PunLR 176, held that the consideration that the accommodation comprised of 9 rooms was of no importance and relevance. It was further held in Kidar Nath's case that what is relevant is the reasonable rent on which the premises can be expected to be let out in case the owner is willing to let them out. This position of law has been reiterated in several other judicial pronouncements including one in Gurdial Singh v. Municipal Corporation Jullundur and another,1986 88 PunLR 656. This being the position of law, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the same is quashed. The order of the Administrator Municipality is not attached with the writ petition but the learned counsel for the Municipality is not attached with the writ petition but the learned counsel for the Municipality has read out before me the order of the Administrator and this order also suffers from the same legal infirmity. In view thereof, there is absolutely no other option for this Court but to set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.3.1979 and the order of the Administrator Municipality, Patiala dated 14.2.1978 and remand the case to the Administrator Municipality, Patiala who will proceed with the case in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

(3.) The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Administrator Municipality, Patiala on 9.12.1988.