N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions raise identical questions and as such are being decided by a common order.
(2.) IN connection with preparation of assessment list of house Nos. 52/11, 52/14 and 97 Rajpur Road, Dehradun, under Section 145(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Nagar Palika (City Boardj, Dehradun, by order dated 29th March, 1934, determined the annual value of the aforesaid three houses at Rs. 6,000/ -, Rs. 4,24,908/ - and Rs. 2,21,325/ - respectively. A perusal of this order, copy whereof has been filed as an annexure to both these writ petitions, indicates that this annual value has been determined on the basis of the gross annual rent for which these houses are "actually let" as contemplated by Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 140 of the Act. The house tax and water tax were thereafter calculated on the basis of the aforesaid annual value in the manner contemplated by the Act and notices of demand in respect of house tax and water tax have been served on the Petitioners. Aggrieved by the assessment of tax in the manner stated above the Petitioners have preferred appeals under Section 160 of the Act which are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. In these appeals applications were made by the Petitioners for staying the realisation of the tax assessed. These applications have been dismissed on 2nd January, 1985, in view of Section 161 of the Act which inter alia contemplates that no appeal under Section 160 of the Act 'shall be heard and determined unless the amount claimed from the Appellant has been deposited by him in municipal office. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the view that since the deposit of the amount claimed from the appellants in the municipal office is a condition precedent for hearing and determination of the appeals it was not possible to stay the realisation of the said amount. Two reliefs have been claimed in each of these two writ petitions (a) for the quashing of the order dated 2nd January, 1980, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing him to hear the appeal without the deposit of the amount of tax; and (b) for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Nagar Pallka not to realise the taxes from the Petitioners in pursuance of the notices of demand issued in this behalf during the pendency of the appeals preferred by the Petitioners.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the Petitioners at some length we are of opinion that it is not possible to grant either of the two reliefs preyed for in these writ petitions in view of the mandatory provision contained in this behalf in Section 161 of the Act already pointed out above, namely, that no appeal preferred under Section 160 of the Act shall be heard and determined unless the amount claimed from the Appellant has been deposited by him in the municipal office.;