NARAIN Vs. ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Municipal Committee, Ajmer, presented a requisition under Section 234 of Municipal Regulation No. VI of 1925 seeking to realize a sum of Rs. 476/6/- from Shri Narain of Mohalla Nagra, Ajmer in respect of property No. XV/ 2095. A notice was issued to the opposite party and he filed a written objection. When examined by the Magistrate, the opposite party admitted ownership of the property and also receipt of the demand notice. Thereupon the learned Magistrate overruling the objection that a second application would not lie, directed the opposite party to pay the sum within three days failing which a distress warrant would be issued for realizing the same. Against that order, a revision application was filed in the court of the District Magistrate, but was unsuccessful. Now Shri Narain, the opposite party, has come up in revision to this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the Municipal Committee.

(2.) THE first point urged by the learned Counsel is that the learned Magistrate was wrong in proceeding in the matter as he had not been Satisfied that the requirements of Section 87 of Regulation 6 of 1925 had been satisfied. The learned Counsel refers me to the provisions of Section 234. Under that section the Magistrate had power to proceed further only if he is satisfied that any tax, water-rate or fee (other than a school fee) and any costs, damages or compensation or other money is payable or is claimable or is recoverable by a Committee. He has further to be satisfied that a demand has been made therefor in the manner prescribed by the rule. So far as house-tax is concerned the relevant provision is contained in Rule 87 which prescribes that a bill for the amount stating the property which is taxed and the period for which the charge is made is to be delivered to the owner of the Immovable property. If the amount of this bill is not paid within 10 days of the delivery of the same, then a notice of demand has to be served and if the notice of demand is not complied within 7 days, then alone the Municipal Committee has the choice either to make a requisition to the Magistrate under Section 234 or a request to the Collector to realize the tax as an arrear of land revenue or to proceed in the civil court.

(3.) IT appears to me that the proper procedure is not being followed in these applications. It would therefore be advantageous to state the procedure that should be followed. On receipt of the requisition the Magistrate should, before summoning the opposite party, call upon the Municipal Committee to furnish prima facie evidence of the Municipal Committee having served the opposite party with a bill for the amount stating the property and the period for which the charge is made. Then it should satisfy the Magistrate that a period of ten days has elapsed without payment having been made. The Committee should further satisfy the Magistrate that subsequently a notice of demand was duly served on the opposite party and that within seven days the opposite party neither paid the amount nor showed sufficient cause for nonpayment. In addition, the Magistrate should be satisfied that the amount had not been paid upto date. Then and then alone the learned Magistrate should issue process calling upon the opposite party to show cause why a distress warrant be not issued. Of course, it will be open to the opposite party to satisfy the Magistrate that despite the evidence and his prima facie satisfaction on the point, the preliminary steps had, in fact, not been taken by the Municipal Committee.