S.N.Kapoor - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the assessment of property known as'Marshall House 'having different Units IP/101,101-A,101-B,101-C,101D and 121 to 127 situated at Hanuman Road, New Delhi. "Theimpugned assessment was made under Resolution No. 14 dated 23.2.1981 for the year 1981-82 and confirmed by order dated 30.4.1982 by Smt. P. Prashad ADM (S.&N.D.).
(2.) According to the petitioners they purchased the property on 31.12.1960 for a sum of Rs. 7,25,000.00 . Its property tax was assessed till 31.3.1981 at a rateable value of Rs. 96,000.00 . Civil Court had restrained the NDMC from recovering house-tax at the rateable value higher than Rs. 96,000.00 per annum. The NDMC has illegally assessed the annual value of the property by ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Devi, AIR 1962 SC 151, Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association etc., AIR 1971 SC 353 ,and New Delhi Municipal Committee v. M.N. Soi And Another, 1977(1) RCR 174. The revision of annual value is neither justified in the light of the provisions of Section 6 nor Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the 'DRC Act'). Under Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the 'P.M. Act') the central air-conditioning plant and two lifts and other machineries could not be taken into consideration while calculating the annual value of the property.
(3.) The NDMC has justified the assessment under Section 9(4) on the ground that it has been finalized in accordance with law and the decision of the learned ADM was in accord with the decision of the Supreme Court. The contention that the air-conditioning plant and lift as mentioned in the grounds were part and parcel of the building and without these facilities, the building may not even have any letting value. It was further submitted that the Civil Court did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the challenge to the house-tax assessment. When specific remedy is provided the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 could not be invoked.;