RASTOGI BROTHERS Vs. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner is a tenant of a shop in the ground floor of a two-storied building known as "Devi Market" in Patna City. Opposite Party No. 3, Devi Prasad Banka is the owner of the two-storied building. It is comprised in holding No. 107 within, the limit of the Patna Municipal Corporation. It appears that there are eight shops in this building and previously the annual value of the building was determined at Rs. 3240.00 and the quarterly house tax, latrine tax and water tax were assessed at Rs. 101/4/-, Rs. 81.00 and Rs. 81.00, respectively. In the year 1952 the annual value was raised to Rs. 5000.00 and the house tax, latrine tax and water tax were also raised to Rs. 156/4/-, Rs. 125.00 and Rs. 125.00, respectively. On the 5th September, 1955, opposite party No. 3 made an application to the Assistant Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, praying that holding No. 107 should be split up and the taxes should be apportioned. The application was heard by Mr. S.N. Sarkar, who was the Assistant Executive Officer, and by his order dated the 14th October, 1955, the holding No. 107 was split up into eight different holdings bearing holdings Nos. 107 and 107A to 107G. The valuation of the entire holding was thus raised as a result from Rs. 5000.00 to Rs. 8,320.00and the total quarterly taxes were raised from Rs. 406/4/- to Rs. 603/10/-. The holding of the petitioner was numbered as 107C and its annual valuation was determined at Rs. 1500.00 and the quarterly house tax, latrine tax and water lax were assessed at Rs. 46/14/-, Rs. 37/8/- and Rs. 22/8/-, respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had no notice of the proceedings initiated by opposite party No. 3, and under the provisions of Section 139(2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act neither the valuation of the holding nor the taxes could be increased without any notice upon him.

(2.) Counter-affidavits have been filed in this case on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation and also on behalf of opposite party No. 3.

(3.) The main question for determination in this case is whether the order of the Assistant Executive Officer dated the 14th October, 1955, splitting up the holding and enhancing the taxes is ultra vires because of failure to give notice to the petitioner who was the occupier of a portion of the holding at the material time. The question turns upon the interpretation of Sections 139 (1) and 139(2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act which read as follows :