SINGANALLUR MUNICIPALITY Vs. VASANTHA MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three second appeals raise an important question of law concerning the interpretation of the proviso to Sec. 82 (2) of the Tamil Nadu District municipalities Act, 1920. The plaintiffs in the three suits, who are Mills, were assessed to property tax by the Singanallur Municipality by its Special Officer. According to the Mills, the assessment of property tax was not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and therefore the assessment was illegal and void. They filed the suits O. S. Nos. 1278 of 1968, 1402 of 1968 and 1192 of 1968 praying for a declaration that the basis of the taxation was illegal as the provisions of the Act had not been complied with. The Municipality contended that tax was assessed according to the proviso to Sec. 82 (2) of the Act as the buildings in question were of a class not ordinarily let, the gross annual rent of which could not, in the opinion of the executive authority, be estimated. The trial court dismissed the suits, holding that the ration authority was given wide discretion in choosing any of the methods of determining the annual rental value and that the court would not be entitled to question that discretion and give a finding of its own whether the building was capable of being let out or could be ordinarily let out. On appeal by the three mills, the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, allowed the appeals on the ground that the Municipality could not successfully contend that the buildings belonged to a class not ordinarily let. The lower appellate court observed that the provisions of Sec. 82 must be complied with by the municipality in substance and in effect, that judged by that standard the assessment made in the cases on the basis of the capital value was not proper and that on that account the Municipality had failed to comply with the provisions of the Act.

(2.) THEREUPON, the Municipality preferred the above three second appeals. In the first instance they came up before Ismail J. , who, after referring to the relevant decisions, found himself unable to agree with the view taken by a single Judge of this Court in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. Singanallur Municipality, 1973-2 Mad LJ 116, and as he was of the opinion that the question required to be considered by a larger Bench, he directed the appeals to be posted before a Bench. They were accordingly placed before this Full Bench, as the question is of great importance and of frequent occurrence and the decisions on the point have to be clarified.

(3.) SEC. 82 (1) of the Act deals with the method of assessment of the property. It runs as follows-" 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. " sec. 82 (2) states-