- (1.) Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 18th September, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5102 of 1994 and Civil Writ Petition No. 555 of 1995. By the impugned judgment the provisions of Explanation to Bye-law 3(i)(a), Bye-law 3(i)(c)(ii), Bye-law 3(i)(e) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Valuation) Bye-laws, 1994 ("R.V. Bye-laws" for short) and Bye-law 8 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax Return) Bye-laws, 1994 (for short "Property Tax Return Bye-laws") have been struck down. Though the legality of the said judgment had been challenged in appeal but in course of hearing of this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant restricts the challenge only to the declaration of invalidity of Explanation to Bye-law 3(i)(a) of the R. V. Bye-laws and Bye-law 8 of the Property Tax Return Bye-laws. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court declaring the provisions of Bye-laws 3(i)(c)(ii) and 3(i)(e) of R. V. Bye-laws as invalid remain unaltered.
(2.) Coming to the question, as to whether the High Court was justified in invalidating Explanation to Bye-law 3(i)(a) of the R. V. Bye-Laws, the High Court is of the opinion that the said provision is repugnant to Section 135 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inasmuch as it encroaches upon the powers given to the Commissioner under Section 135 to employ valuers to give him advice in connection with the valuation of any land or building. The High Court is further of the opinion that the explanation to Bye-law 3(i)(a) binds the Assessing Officer to determine the prevalent rent on the basis of a panel which is not permissible under the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that both the aforesaid reasons indicated by the High Court for invalidating the explanation is wholly unsustainable in law as the same has been arrived at on a misreading of the relevant provisions of the Act and as such the said conclusion has to be set aside by this Court. Bye-law 3(i)(a) together with the explanation, is extracted hereunder in extenso for better appreciation of the point in issue : "(3)(i). For the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 116 of the Act, the annual rent shall be determined as under : (a) Where the premises are on rent, the rent actually realised or realizable, unless the same is collusive or concessional, shall be the annual rent. Where the tenancy commences on or after the 1st day of April, 1995 and where the Commissioner has reason to believe that the declared rent does not represent the prevalent rent of the year of letting and the difference between declared rent and prevalent rent is more than twenty five per cent of the declared rent, the annual rent shall be the prevalent rent : Explanation :- For the purposes of this clause the prevalent rents shall be determined by a panel of assessors to be appointed by the Commissioner. Such panel shall include a representative from the Government, a representative of any Taxation Department (other than the Corporation) or a valuer and a representative of the property owners of the zone of which the prevalent rents are to be determined.
(3.) Under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act power to make Bye-laws has been provided in Section 481. Obviously, no bye-law can be framed which would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The R. V. Bye-laws relate to taxation. It may be noticed that under Section 481A of the Act, bye-laws framed are required to be laid before the Parliament and thus the bye-laws also have the legislative sanction of the Parliament itself. Bye-law 3 of the R. V. Bye-laws prescribes the procedure for determination of annual rent for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 116 of the Act. Section 116 indicates the mode of determination of rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes. Section 116(1) of the Act does not provide as to how the annual rent of the land or building which might reasonably be expected to be arrived at. Bye-law (3), therefore, provides the mode of determination of such annual rent. The explanation to Bye-law 3(i)(a) provides that for the clause in question the prevalent rent shall be determined by a panel of assessors to be appointed by the Commissioner and such panel should include a representative of the Government, a representative of any Taxation Department or a valuer and a representative of the property owner of the zone of which the prevalent rents are to be determined. The bye-law, therefore is essentially a safeguard provided for the property owners and the determination thus made by a panel of assessors will be a safeguide for the Commissioner to exercise his ultimate power, so that, the exercise of such power cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive. In this view of the matter, we fail to understand how the aforesaid explanation can be said to be repugnant to the independent application of mind of the Commissioner under the Act. The High Court, therefore, was in error to hold such Explanation binds the Assessing Officer and controls the power of such Assessing Officer under the Act. In our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. Further on a plain reading of Section 135 of the Act, we are not in a position to sustain the conclusion of the High Court that the explanation contravenes the provisions of Section 135 of the Act. Section 135 is an enabling power of the Commissioner to appoint one or more competent persons to give advice or assistance in connection with the valuation of any land or building. The Bye-law in question together with explanation merely states as to how the persons could be appointed to advice the Commissioner in connection with the valuation of any land or building and we see nothing in that explanation which can be said to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 135 of the Act. The conclusion of the High Court on this score, therefore, is unsustainable in law. In the aforesaid premises we are of the considered opinion that the explanation to Bye-law 3(i)(a) of the R. V. Bye-laws does not suffer from the vice of any invalidity and we accordingly set aside the conclusion of the High Court on this score and hold that the said provision is a valid piece of legislation.;