- (1.) THIS is one of the oldest cases pending in this court in which the petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 1 dated 11.4.1970 assessing his shop under the provisions of Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act and declaring its Annual rental value to be Rs. 3600/ - within the meaning of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act tion are that the petitioner who was originally a tenant of the shop regarding which assessment had been made and paying Rs. 35/ - per month as rent purchased the said shop in the year 1964. The petitioner was served notices by the respondents for the annual assessment of the said -property under section 5 of the Urban Immoveable Properly Tax Act, hereinafter called the Act. In response to the final notice issued the petitioner appeared and filed objections stating there in that the monthly rental value of the shop was not more than Rs. 35/ - The property in question was an old one to which provisions of Rent Control Act were applicable and the valuation of the surrounding shops also indicated that the monthly rental value of the property was not more than Rs. 35/ - in any case. The petitioner also produced a list of adjoining shops indicating the rent they were paying. Copy of the said list has been filed with this petition as Annexure D However the assessing authority held: "when the same shop has been purchased by the assesses and is earring on self commercial business in it. As a tenant who became the owner the question of applying Rent Control Act does not arise at all because shop is under self commercial use. The shop is also situate in heart of busy commercial market. So keeping in view the site accommodation .and reasonable rent prevailing in the same particular locality the rent of Rs. 300/ - is fixed under section 5 of the Act."
(2.) THE respondents vide their objections submitted that despite repeated public notices the petitioner did not submit the objections with the result that the assessing authority issued the valuation list in pursuance of Section 7 of the said Act. However in order to do substantial justice to him a , fresh notice was served on the petitioner on 4. 3. 1970 calling upon him to produce the rental value statement on 11.3. 1970. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner appeared through his counsel and also filed his objections to the proposed valuation. Every opportunity was given to the petitioner to support his case by whatever means he desired. The case of the petitioner was considered and after allowing the usual deductions an annual letting out value was determined at Rs. 3240/ -. The petitioner never raised any objection or controversy to the effect that basis for determining the proposed annual letting out value had not been disclosed to him. .No circumstance had been shown to the assessing authority for holding. that the monthly rental value was only Rs. 35.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the relevant record. Section 5 of the s Act provides that : " The annual value of any land or building shall be ascertained by estimating the gross annual rent at which such land or building together with its appurtenances and any furniture that may be let for use or enjoyment with such building might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. " In the instant case it is not denied that the property when let out to the tenant was fetching Rs. 35/ - per month as the rent. It is very strange that if the property remains under the tenancy of a tenant, the landlord would be held liable to pay the tax on the annual value assessed on the basis of the fair rent but if the same property is sold and is purchased by the tenant he would be deprived of such benefit. Owners of the property cannot be discriminated against nor is there any basis to make such a distinction.;