K. S. Verma, J. - (1.) THE above mentioned revision applications are directed against the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow upholding the order of the Judge Small Causes, Lucknow under section 472 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam whereby he had dismissed the applicant's appeal against ex-parte order dated 31-3-1967 passed by a Sub-Committee of the Executive Committee of the Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika. By the ex-parte order house no. 222/4 situated in Raja Bazar, Lucknow, was assessed under sec. 213 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) in the name of the applicant's husband Lala Ram Swarup Rastogi on a rental annual value of Rs. 5124/-. THE facts that have given rise to the assessment of the house are that the applicant in both the revisions claims to be the owner of the house which, according to her, is in her occupation. By a registered sale deed dated 12-11-1960, the applicant purchased land with dilapidated structures thereon from it's former owner. THEreafter, she constructed a double stoned building in the year 1966-67 on the said land after demolishing the existing structures. THE complaint of the applicant is that no notice of assessment was ever served upon the applicant or on her husband or any member of her family. On 30-3-1970 when her representative appeared before the Sub Committee of the Executive Committee of the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow for the hearing and disposal of her objections in response to the notice issued for the quinquennial assessment, it was known from the file that the house was assessed on 31-3-1967 on an annual rental value of Rs. 5124/. On 6-4-1970, she applied for a copy of the order dated 31-3-1967 which was issued to her on 24-4-1970. On receipt of the copy of the order, she came to know that her house was assessed on annual rental of Rs. 5124 in the name of her husband in the year 1967. According to the applicant, no bill of taxes was ever served upon her or her husband on the basis of that assessment. THE notice of demand dated 12-3-1970 was received by her husband through registered post in respect of arrears of taxes from 1-4-1967 up to 31-3-1970. It may be stated that in the quinquennial assessment, the assessment of the house made on 31-3-1967 was confirmed. THE applicant preferred two appeals before the Judge Small Causes, Lucknow. One appeal was directed against the assessment made in the year 1967 and the other appeal was directed against the assessment of the house made in 1970 whereby the assessment was made in terms of the assessment of 1967. During the pendency of the appeals against the assessment orders, Ram Swarup, husband of the applicant, filed an affidavit in which he stated his address as follows :- "I Ram Swarup s/o Late Sri Lachmi Narain Rastogi, aged about 56 years, r/o house no. 222/4, Raja Bazar, Lucknow." In the said affidavit, Ram Swarup has stated that no notice of assessment was ever received or served upon him. He has stated that he did not receive any bill of taxes in respect of the said house assessed in his name on an annual rental value of Rs. 5124 except a notice dated 12-3-1970 through registered post demanding arrears of taxes from 1-4-1967 to 31-3-1970 due against the said house. He further states in the affidavit that no other bill prior to the said notice of demand was ever received by or served upon him.
(2.) BEFORE the appellate court, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that she was the owner of the house in dispute and inspire of that no notice for purposes of assessment was ever addressed, tendered or served on her in the year 1967. The applicant contended that she came to know at the time when the re-assessment was made in 1970 that the house was assessed in the year 1967 ex-parte. She filed objections in respect of the old assessment as well which, according to the applicant, was done arbitrarily in her absence without any notice to her. The Judge Small Cause Court by its order dated 22-12-1970 dismissed the appeal and recorded a finding that the notice under section 213 of the Adhiniyam, 1959 for casual assessment was duly served on the applicant's husband by affixation on 28-2-1967. Against the appellate order dated 22-12-1970, two appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Lucknow under section 476 of the Adhiniyam. The learned District Judge by his judment dated 3-8-1972 dismissed the appeal on the ground that no question of law was involved and hence no interference with the order of the lower appellate Court was called for. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the applicant has filed these revision applications in this Court. In this revision application, I have heard Mr. Jai Karan Nath for the applicant and Mr. B. L. Kaul on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that no notice of assessment was served on the applicant although she was the owner of the house. It was contended on her behalf that since the applicant was the owner of the house and since no attempt was made by the Nagar Mahapalika to serve the notice on her, the service of notice on her husband Ram Swarup was not proper and in law it will be deemed that there was no service on the applicant. It was further contended that the assessment proceedings for the year 1967 were without jurisdiction as in the absence of any notice to the applicant, she could not file her objections and could not contest the arbitrary assessment made by the Nagar Mahapalika in respect of the house in dispute. On the other hand, Mr. B. L. Kaul, learned counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika contended by reference to various provisions of the Adhiniyam that personal notice of assessment was not necessary and it was sufficient if a notice was served on any occupier of the house. He further contended that Nagar Mahapalika is a Local Body and it is not possible to keep track of the changes in ownership from time to time in respect of numerous houses in the city. He contended that it was the duty of the applicant, when she purchsed the house to have informed the Nagar Mahapalika that she was the owner of the house in dispute. If she failed to do, she did it at her own risk and the order of assessment could not be challenged by the applicant on the ground of non-service of notice.
(3.) IN order to resolve the controversy in the instant case, reference may be made to relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam. Chapter IX of the Adhiniyam deals with 'Mahapalika Taxation'. Under section 172 of the Adhiniyam the Mahapalika is empowered to impose the following taxes, namely, "(a) property taxes..............." Under section 207 of the Adhiniyam, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall cause an assessment list of all buildings or lands or both in the city to be prepared, containing the name of the owner and occupier, "known". Under section 209 of the Adhiniyam, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is also required to give notice to the owner or occupier of the property "if known". Section 211 of the Adhiniyam provides that a new assessment list shall ordinarily be prepared in the manner prescribed by sections 207 to 210 of the Adhiniyam once in every five years. Under section 213 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam, the Executive Committee or a sub committee thereof appointed in that behalf may at any time alter or amend the assessment list by substituting therein for the name of the owner or occupier of any property the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the property. Section 214 of the Adhiniyam provides as follows :- "When a building is built, re-built or enlarged, the owner shall give notice thereof to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari within fifteen days from the date of completion of such building, re-building or enlargement, or from the date of the occupation of such building, whichever date happens first." Section 554 (3) of the Adhiniyam provides that when any notice is required to be served on the owner or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier therein and the service shall be effected as follows :- "(a) by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other documents to the owner or occupier or if there be more than one owner or occupier, to any one of the owners or occupiers of such building or land, (b) if the owner or occupier or none of the owners or occupiers is found, by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other documents to some adult member or servant of the family of the owner or occupier or any of the owners or occupiers, or (c) if none of the means aforesaid be available by causing the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other documents to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which the same relates." During the course of arguments my attention was drawn to the Commentary on the U. P. Municipalities Act by S. P. Sinha. The analogous provision contained in sec. 554 of the Adhiniyam in regard to the manner of service is to be found in section 303 of U. P. Municipalities Act 1916. The said section provides that it shall not be necessary to mention the name of the owner or occupier while serving a notice under the said Act. The said Commentary mentions that most of the Local Bodies in this country have enacted provisions in lines with section 303 of the Municipalities Act and section 554 of the Adhiniyam.;