V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) A building bearing two numbers, being Nos. D -40/16 and D -40/27 situated in Mohalla Godowlia within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi belonging to Respondent No. 2, was assessed at Rs. 11,760/ -. This building had certain shops on the ground floor, about 17 rooms on the first floor and 12 rooms on the second floor, when it was assessed as aforesaid. Subsequently, before the next quinquennial assessment of the building could take place, 5 new rooms were constructed on the second floor by Respondent No. 2. On its basis, the Petitioner, Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi proceeded to revalue and reassess the building under Section 213(1)(d) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It appears that on the recommendation of its sub -committee, the Executive Committee of the Nagar Mahapalika increased the annual value of the building from Rs. 11,760/ -to Rs. 61,200/ -. Against that order an appeal was filed by Respondent No. 2 which was allowed in part by the Judge, Small Causes Courts, Varanasi on 3rd May, 1972, whereby the building in dispute was assessed at an annual value of Rs. 28,800/ -. This assessment was to take effect from 1 -4 -1972. The Nagar Mahapalika, aggrieved by that order filed a second appeal before the District Judge. A cross -objection was also filed by Respondent No. 2. The appeal and the cross -objection were heard by the, First Additional District Judge, Varanasi who by his order dated 12th January, 1973 dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross -objection to this extent that he ordered the building to be assessed at Rs. 13, 500/ -in place of Rs. 11, 760/ -. Aggrieved by the said orders the Nagar Mahapalika has instituted this writ petition with a prayer to quash the aforesaid orders passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts, Varanasi and the Additional District Judge, Varanasi.
(2.) IT was urged by the counsel for the Petitioner that on account of the 5 rooms being added on the second floor of the building the Nagar Mahapalika became competent to revalue and reassess the whole building afresh so that even the annual value of the existing building could be revalued or reassessed and the Additional District Judge has committed a manifest error of law in taking a contrary view and adding only the rental value of the newly added rooms to the existing annual value of the building in question. The point raised in this writ petition turns round the interpretation of Section 213(1)(d) of the Act, which reads as follows: 213. Amendment and Alteration of List: (1) The Executive Committee or a sub -committee thereof appointed in this behalf may at any time alter or amend the assessment list * * * * (d) By revaluing or re -assessing any property, the value of which has been increased by additions or alterations to buildings; or * * * * On a conspectus of the relevant sections in regard to the assessment of buildings, it is apparent that after a building has been assessed, normally, it can not be revalued or reassessed till a subsequent quinquennial assessment takes place. An alteration and amendment in the assessment, however, is possible if any of the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub -section (1) of Section 213 of the Act are made out. In the instant case, it was not the case of the Nagar Mahapalika, the Petitioner, that the assessment of the building required alteration or amendment on any ground other than the ground contained in Clause (d) of Section 213(1) of the Act. As already seen above, the only ground relied on by the Petitioner for revaluing or reassessing the building aforesaid was that five rooms had been added on the second floor of the said building.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that Clause (d) of Section 213(1) of the Act permits alteration or amendment of the assessment list by the Executive Committee or a sub -committee thereof appointed in this behalf, by revaluing or reassessing any property "the value of which has been increased by additions or alterations to buildings". In our opinion, what is of consequence is that the additions or alterations in the building should have a correlation with the existing rental value of the property. If any addition or alteration to a building has been made, which has the effect of increasing the value of the existing property, such addition or alteration can be made the basis for revaluing or reassessing the property. But if the additions or alterations do not have any such effect, the existing building cannot be revalued or reassessed. The only thing that can be done in such a case is that the value of the additions or alterations, if any, will have to be added to the existing value of the building and reassessment made accordingly. Take for instance a building let out to a tenant having no water tap or latrine. If a latrine is constructed and the house is connected with water tap, the addition or alteration made in the building can be said to have a material bearing even on the existing letting value of the building. In such a contingency, it would be a case where the value of the property can be said to have increased by addition or alteration to the building and revaluation and reassessment in such contingency under Section 213(1)(d) of the Act may be possible. But if the addition or alteration does not have the effect of appreciating the letting value of the existing building as such, it would be a case in which the value of the additions or alterations are just to be added to the value of the existing buildings. In such a case revaluation and reassessment of the existing building would not be possible under Section 213(1)(d) of the Act even though it may be possible at the time of subsequent quinquennial assessment.;