R.K.ABICHANDANI - (1.) The petitioners seek to challenge notices, bills and demands for payment of property tax for the period from the year 1974 till 31/03/1980 issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation in respect of the property which according to the petitioners belong to them.
(2.) According to the petitioners, they along with Shambhubhai Patel and Smt. Nilaben Patel purchased a plot of land with superstructure standing thereon for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000.00 on 15/05/1974 and after demolishing the superstructure constructed a multi-storeyed building namely 'Cisco' Chambers. The said property bearing Municipal Census No. RA-5292 is situate in Raopura area in Baroda. According to the petitioners a portion of this building was leased to M/s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co., on 10/12/1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1750.00 for the ground floor, first floor, and the second floor. The petitioners have contended that by letter received in the office of the Corporation on 15/07/1976 they pointed out that they were the owners of the property and that the property should be transferred to their name in the Municipal records. A sum of Rs. 2,441.00 which was due as arrears payable to the Corporation by the vendors of the property was paid by the petitioners on 23/04/1976. The property appears to have been inspected for the purpose of assessing taxes on 1/04/1978 according to the petitioners. In November 1979, a bunch of notices and bills were received by the occupiers of the said building Vijaya Bank, Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co., and Cisco Chambers demanding the amounts mentioned in the bills of arrears of taxes. According to the petitioners these bills were received by Mr. Chinwala, the Manager of M/s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co. The petitioners have contended that notwithstanding the intimation given to the Municipal Commissioner to mutate the names of the petitioners as owners of Cisco Chambers, bills were issued to Roshanbibi Fakruddin as if she was the owner of the property purchased by the petitioners. The petitioners once again on 3/02/1980, made an application for muting their names. The Municipal Authorities, however, by letter dated 9/01/1980, called upon the tenant Vijaya Bank to deposit the monthly rent against the outstanding amount with the office of the respondent. Copy of that letter was sent to Roshanbibi and to M/ s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel and Co.
(3.) At the hearing of the petition, two contention were raised by the learned Counsel, Mr. A. H. Mehta, appearing for the petitioners. He contended that the assessment made by the respondent was not in consonance with the meaning attributed to the expression "annual letting value" defined in Sec. 2(1) (a) according to which wherever rent control law prevails the landlord cannot be expected to get any rent in excess of the standard rent. According to Mr. Mehta, whatever the rent the petitioners were actually getting, namely Rs. 1,750/- per month from the tenant, M/s. Chhotabhai Shankerbhai Patel & Co., should have formed the basis for determining the annual letting value for the purpose of assessing taxes. The second contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that no special notice as stipulated in Rule 15 of Chapter VIII of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which incorporates Taxation Rules, was given to the petitioners who are the owners of the property. He submitted that this is why the petitioners could not file a complaint against the valuation. Mr. M. B. Gandhi, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents started his arguments by contending that there was an amendment under Sec. 2(1)(A) by which clauses (aa) and (aaa) were added to the definition of annual letting value and accordingly where the standard rent was not fixed the property was liable to be assessed on the basis of annual rent which was expected to be realised, but retreated when it was pointed out that the said amendment came into force from 18/01/1984 by Gujarat Act No. 3 of 1984. He therefore proceeded to contend that this Court should not go into the question of valuation which is better left to the appropriate authority under the statute. He argued that there was no need to give any special notice to the petitioners. He submitted that even though the petitioners were the owners of the property, their names were not muted because no joint application was made under Rule 1 of the Taxation Rules and Roshanbibi continued in the record of the Corporation as the person primarily liable under Rule 3 of the Taxation Rules. He submitted that intimation said to have been sent on 15-7-1976 was not received by the Corporation from the petitioners and therefore no mutation could be made. He further contended that there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioners of preferring an appeal instead of rushing to this Court and since they had not exhausted that remedy they should not be given and relief.;