MT BADRUNNISSA Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by two daughters and two sons of defendant 1, Nizam- ud-din. The daughters are both married and were defendants 5 and 6. The suit was brought by the Municipal Board of Agra against Nizam-ud-din alone in the first instance and was a suit for recovery of Rs. 288 comprising Rs. 108 house-tax and Rs. 180 water-tax for the period 1 October 1922 to 30 September 1934, the date of suit. Nizam-ud-din did not defend the suit. The sons and daughters made some claim that they were also owners of the house and an application for their names to be added was made on 12 August 1935 by the plaintiff on the ground that they were also owners and their names were added. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 238. The defendants appealed and the Municipal Board made a cross-objection claiming the full amount Rs. 288 which has been decreed by the lower Court which granted a preliminary decree under Order 34, Rule 4 against the house in question. The liability of the house for the arrears of tax is claimed to be under Section 177, U.P. Municipalities Act of 1916. The first ground of appeal is that the appellants not being entered in the assessment register they were not liable to be taxed, and the second ground is that no bill having been presented to the appellants or notice of demand sent to them the suit was not maintainable. Along with these grounds learned Counsel argued the question of limitation although no plea of limitation was made in the Courts below, nor has he taken the point specifically in his grounds of appeal. The demand in this case is on account of house-tax Rs. 108 which comes under Section 128(1)(i) as "a tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or both," and the demand of Rs. 180 as water tax is on account of the public supply of water by a stand post within the prescribed limits from the house and this tax comes under Section 128 (1)(x) as " a water tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or both." Section 177 provides: All sums duo on account of a tax imposed on the annual value of building or lands or of both shall, subject to the prior payment of the land revenue (if any) due to His Majesty thereupon, be a first charge upon such buildings or lands.

(2.) Both the taxes in question come under Section 177 as in each case the tax is imposed on the annual value of the building. The case is one therefore for the enforcement of a charge on the building. Learned Counsel for appellants referred to the provisions of Secs.166, 167 and 168. Section 166 begins: As soon as a person becomes liable for the payment of: (a) any sum on account of a tax...the Board shall, with all convenient speed, cause a bill to be presented to the persons so liable.

(3.) Section 167 provides for the contents of the bill and Section 168 provides for a notice of dem and if the bill is not paid within 15 days from its presentation. These Secs.are the procedure preliminary to the issue of a warrant under Section 169 for the distress and sale of the moveable property of the defaulter. If the Board had desired it could have used this procedure in the present case and in that case it would be necessary for the Board to prove that the warrant had been preceded by the proper preliminaries. But the Board has not chosen to employ this procedure against the moveable property of the defaulters. The Board has brought a suit under Section 177 to enforce the charge on the building and it is not required by Section 177 or any other Section that there should be any bill or demand. It is further to be noted that the pleading that there was no notice of demand or distress warrant was only made by two of the seven defendants, that is defendants 5 and 6 who are two of the appellants. These particular two defendants are daughters of defendant 1 and they are married women and it is not alleged that they are living in the house. On the other hand defendant 1 is living in the house and he was the person who was entered in the assessment register. The bill and the notice of demand would naturally issue to the person who was entered in the assessment register and there is no allegation in the present case that that procedure was not followed. The argument of learned Counsel apparently is that a Municipal Board has the duty of ascertaining who are all the owners of any particular building and that no taxes can be collected until each and every possible owner has been served with a notice of demand. Learned Counsel has been unable to show anything in the Act which would support such a view. On the contrary, Section 141 for the preparation of the assessment list states that when a tax on buildings or lands is imposed the assessment shall show "(c) the name of the owner and occupier, if known." It is not laid down that the names of every owner and occupier of the building should be entered. Section 142 provides for persons claiming to be owners or occupiers of property included in the list to have a right of inspection and to take extracts from the list without charge, and under Section 143 there is a date fixed by public notice by the Board for objections to be considered. It was possible for defendants 4 and 5 to have made a claim that their names should be entered in the assessment list and they did not do so. Accordingly therefore as they did not claim to be entered and did not get this entry they cannot have any grievances that they did not receive notice in this matter.