TIRUMALAI TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER Vs. TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, the Municipal Council of Tirupati, assessed the electric power house owned by the appellant. This building is not ordinarily let, and hence the respondent proceeded to fix the annual value under the proviso to Section 82, Clause (2) of the District Municipalities Act. Under this proviso, the annual value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent. of the total of the estimated value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building less a deduction for depreciation. In fixing the "estimated present cost of erecting the building" the respondent took the cost of constructing the compound walls as well. This is objected by the appellant on the ground that the compound walls are not included in the word building in Section 82 of the Act and that a compound wall is not a building by itself as defined in Section 3, Clause (3) of the Act.

(2.) Section 82 runs thus: (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises. (2) The annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction, (in the case of buildings only) of ten per centum of such annual rent and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowance for repairs or on any other account whatsoever: Provided that-- (a) in the case of (i) any Government or railway building, or (ii) any building of a class not ordinarily let the gross annual rent of which cannot, in the opinion of the chairman, be estimated, the annual value of the premises shall be deemed to be six per cent. of the total of the estimated value of the land and the estimated present cost of erecting the building after deducting for depreciation a reasonable amount which shall in no case be less than ten per centum of such cost; (b) machinery (and furniture) shall be excluded from valuations under this section. It is urged that in Clause (1) of Section 82 the word building is used so as to exclude even the site on which it stands and also the adjacent premises occupied as appurtenances thereto. The argument is that unless the expression compound wall comes within the words other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto, its value cannot be taken into consideration and that compound walls cannot be called adjacent premises. But in Section 82, Clause (1) the Legislature is laying down a rule of single assessment for the building, site, and the adjacent premises, unless the latter are owned by a different owner. Where for instance, the superstructure is owned by one and the land by another, the building proper alone should be valued and the owner of the building assessed. The site and the adjacent premises will be valued under other provisions and the owner thereof assessed in respect of them. In all other cases, the building, the site and the adjacent premises form a single unit of taxation. The word building is defined by Section 3, Clause (3) as including: ... a house, out house, stable, latrine, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall not exceeding eight feet in height) and any other such structure.... Under this definition, building includes a wall other than a boundary wall which is less than eight feet in height. So, a compound wall which is more than eight feet in height is a building by itself though there may be no building inside.

(3.) The present compound wall is less than eight feet in height. Therefore, it is not a building by itself under Section 3, Clause (3). But the question for decision is whether in valuing a building under Section 82, Clause (2) proviso, the respondent can include the money spent on the compound walls which are less than eight feet in height and not whether the compound walls constitute a building by themselves even though there is no structure inside. I do not see why the compound walls should not be considered part of the building. A parapet wall is certainly included in the word building . Why the money spent on compound walls should be excluded from the valuation of building it is difficult to see. Existence of compound walls certainly enhances the letting value of the building in cases of buildings which are ordinarily let.