- (1.) These appeals, though arising under different factual backgrounds, raise a common question of law and challenge the correctness of a judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The question involved in all these appeals are : "Whether the cost of the plant and machinery installed in or upon a building is includible for the purpose of arriving at the rateable value of the building and Whether S. 116(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the DMC Act") vests arbitrary and uncanalised discretion in Commissioner and is, therefore, invalid for excessive delegation of legislative powers -
(2.) The appellant company owned land in Delhi on which it constructed a cinema complex known as Delite Cinema complex. The construction was completed in or about the year 1954. The company had installed certain plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures in the said construction of cinema house. By an order made on 30th May, 1988 the first respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi revised the rateable value of the appellant's property to Rs. 2,16,970/- w.e.f. 1-4-1968, Rs. 2,18,150/- w.e.f. 1-4-1970 and Rs.2,20,510/- w.e.f. 1-7-1970. For the purpose of arriving at the rateable value the assessing authority added the cost incurred by the appellant towards installation of plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures to the cost of the building. The appellant challenged the assessment order by a statutory appeal under S. 169 of the DMC Act contending that the cost incurred towards plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures could not be added to the cost of the building for the purpose of rateable value as they are moveable items and not part and parcel of the building. It was also contended that there was no specific notification issued by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation for including the value of moveable items, plant and machinery for arriving at a rateable value. The appeals filed by the appellant were allowed by the appellate Court by a judgment dated 1-6-1991. The appellate Court upheld the contention of the appellant and directed the Municipal Corporation to work out rateable value by deleting the cost of plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures from the cost of the building. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the respondent Municipal Corporation challenged the judgment by a batch of writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi. The writ petition together with other writ petitions challenging similar orders was disposed of by a common judgment dated 19-2-1999. The High Court relying upon its own judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pragati Builders and Ors. [45 (1991) D. L. T. 264] and the judgment of this Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. [1995 (3) SCC 716] took the view that the matter had to be remitted back to the assessing authority to determine the rateable value in accordance with law as pronounced in the aforesaid judgments. Although, it was specifically contended by the appellant before the High Court that a notification under S. 116(3) of the DMC Act declaring that the lift shall be deemed to form part of land building, was published in the Newspaper on 23-10-1989 and 24-10-1989 and therefore, could have only prospective effect, the High Court did not decide the said issue. After setting aside the judgment of the appellate authority, the issues were remitted back to the assessing authority with a direction to determine the rateable value in accordance with law leaving open all contentions to be urged before the assessing authority. This judgment is challenged by these appeals.
(3.) In these two appeals the facts are almost same as in the previous group except that here an additional contention as to the constitutional validity of S. 116(3) of the D. M. C. Act was raised before the High Court while challenging the order of the Joint Assessor and Collector fixing the rateable value for different years. The writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by two separate judgments dated 19-2-1999. The High Court negatived the challenge to the validity of S. 116(3) of the D. M. C. Act by holding that it is only an enabling provision and that the judgment of this Court in New Manek Chowk Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. etc. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. [AIR 1967 SC 1801] was distinguishable. The High Court also relied on its own judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pragati Builders and Ors (supra) and the judgment of this court in Hindustan Lever Ltd.. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. (supra), set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and remitted the assessment to the assessing authority for making afresh assessment orders. The appellants are in appeal before this court.;