A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of assessment passed by the respondent Municipal Board raising the house-tax fixed in 1975. THE Tax Superintendent fixed the annual value of the building at Rs. 7200/. On appeal the Chief Judicial Magistrate reduced it to Rs. 4800/-. THE Tax Superintendent has observed that the disputed house has four rooms of 20 ft. x 18 ft. two rooms of 12 ft. x 16 ft. and two verandahs. It has the facility of electric and water supply. He has further observed that the house is situate in a good locality and can easily be let out for Rs. 800/- per month. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate has on appeal by the petitioner held that looking to the nature of the accommodation as well as the locality in which it is situate it could easily fetch a rent of Rs. 400/- per month. Consequently, it determined the assessment at the annual value of the building at Rs. 4800/-.
(2.) SRI R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders submitted that the accommodation is within the purview of the Rent Control Act and consequently the house-tax should be assessed on the standard rent determined under the Rent Control Legislation. That being so, it was urged that the impugned orders should be quashed. We find no merit in the above contention. Apart from the bald allegation that the house is within the purview of the Rent Control Act, the petitioner placed no material before us which may enable this Court to ascertain the standard rent payable under the Rent Control Act. In the absence of that material, it is not possible to hold that the annual letting value fixed by the authorities has been determined at a figure higher than the standard rent under the Rent Control Act. In this view, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Corporation of Calcutta reported in AIR 1962 which lays down that the rental value of a property cannot be fixed at a figure higher than the standard rent under the Rent Control Act, can obviously have no application to the present case. The next contention was that the assessment having been made in 1975 could not be revised before the expiry of five years. The submission ignores Section 147 which authorises the Municipal Board to revise the assessment if it is found that the building has been under valued as a result of mistake etc. at the regular assessment or the value of the property has since increased by additions or alteration to the building. On the material available with the authorities, therefore, there was no lack of jurisdiction to enhance the house tax from the existing rate of tax fixed in 1975.
(3.) THERE is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. But we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;