A. B. Srivastava, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the Nagar Palika, Aligarh a local body, has impugned and sought quashing of an order dated 1.3.1980, passed by the Prescribed Authority (C.J.M., Aligarh) under U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred as the Act), whereby allowing a review application of the respondent No. 2, he set aside an order of assessment in respect of a house under Section 147, made by the petitioner and an earlier order of the Prescribed Authority dismissing the appeal against it.
(2.) THE respondent No. 2 admittedly is the owner of House No. 7/13 Mohalla Sarai Baijnath, within the municipal limits of Aligarh. The house was originally assessed at Rs. 12,000 per annum. On learning that it was fetching a higher rent and due to concealment of facts there was low assessment, a notice under Section 147 (c) was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the assessment be not increased to Rs. 30,960 per annum as the building was rented to Syndicate Bank on Rs. 2,580 per month. By an order dated 31.3.1979, the competent authority of the Nagar Palika confirmed the said notice. An appeal was preferred to the respondent No. 1, who after hearing the parties dismissed the same and affirmed the revised assessment. Subsequently on a review application filed by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 recalled the said order and directed the annual assessment to be made in accordance with Section 140 (a) of the Act. It is this order which is impugned In this petition. Having heard learned counsel for both sides, it is found that the Impugned order of the respondent No. 1, the Prescribed Authority, is totally against law and in passing the same, the authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction, totally ignoring the factual and legal position.
(3.) ASSESSMENT in this case by the local authority was being made of a rented building. The contention of the respondent No. 2 that the building though occupied by the Bank as tenant, it was not rented for the purposes of assessment, is untenable. The Bank itself vide letter (Annexure '2') informed the local authority that it was paying Rs. 2,580 per month as rent to the respondent No. 2, which of course was being adjusted towards instalments of loan taken by the respondent No. 2. Simply because the amount was not being paid directly to the respondent No. 2, rather was treated as payment of instalments of debt by him, it does not cease to be rent. The building in question was also not one of the category enumerated in Section 140 (1) (a) of the Act which applies to Railway Station, Hotels, Colleges, Schools, Hospitals, Factories, and such buildings. A Bank does not come under any of these categories. Moreover, sub-section (b) of Section 140 (1) of the Act is the provision relevant to the building in question which was fetching rent, and not sub-section (a) which applies to buildings other than those let on rent. There thus was no scope or occasion to entertain the prayer for review of the earlier judgment which was validly passed, much less to allow the same. The impugned order of the Prescribed Authority is thus is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, the Impugned order of the respondent No. 1 is quashed, but with no order as to costs.;