- (1.) UNDER the provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, which is the petitioner in this Court, fixed the annual value of property No. 18/83A, Daresi No. 3, Ward, 7 Agra at Rs. 15,000/-. The third respondent, who is the owner of that property, assailed the fixation by filing an appeal under Section 472 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The appellate authority reduced the amount of annual value to Rs. 12,000/-. This order was affirmed in a further appeal by the Presiding Officer of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal. The two appellate orders have been assailed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra by way of this writ petition.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the two appellate authorities committed a manifest error in excluding the amount of tax which was being paid by the tenant to the third respondent, in addition to rent, under an agreement entered into by the tenant with that respondent. In fact, according to the case of the petitioner, the entire amount, inclusive of the amount of tax, was to be treated to be the annual value of the building for the purposes of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Annual value has been defined in the Adhiniyam under Section 174 which runs as under : "174. 'Annual value' means - in the case of railway stations, colleges, schools, hostels, factories and other such building, a proportion not below 5% to be fixed by rules made in this behalf of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building, less depreciation at a rate to be fixed by rule, to the estimated value of the land appurtenant thereto, and, (b) in the case of a building or land not falling within the provisions of clause (a) the gross annual rent for which such building, exclusive of furniture or machinery therein, or such land is actually let, or where the building or land is not let or in the opinion of the assessing authority is let for a sum less than its fair letting value, might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. Provided that where the annual value of any building would by reason of exceptional circumstances, in the opinion of the Mahapalika, be excessive if calculated in the aforesaid manner, the Mahapalika may fix the annual value at any less amount which appears to it equitable. Provided further that where the Mahapalika so resolves the annual value in the case of owner occupied building and shall for the purposes of assessment of property taxes be deemed to be 25 per cent less than the annual value otherwise determined under this section." A perusal of Clause (b) would show that what has to be treated to be annual value is the gross annual rent for which the building is actually let out and excludes the amount which may be attributable to the use of furniture, machinery etc., let out with the building. There are some other considerations also with which we are not concerned in this petition.
(3.) A look at the order passed by the two appellate authorities would show that admittedly the agreement between the parties was that a sum of Rs. 11,000/per annum alone was payable to the third respondent as rent. The gross annual rent of the building in question would be that amount alone for which the building had been actually let out. In view of the definition of annual value as contained in Cl. (b) of S.174, it is difficult to countenance the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the amount which had been undertaken to be paid as tax by the tenant was liable to be considered for computation of the annual value. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the two appellate authorities under the Adhiniyam suffers from any manifest error of law. The petition has no merits and is dismissed. The third respondent, who has contested the petition, shall be entitled to his costs. Petition dismissed.;