R.L.ANAND,J - (1.) THE Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Assessment order dated 31.12.1998 passed by Municipal Council, Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur, respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P-14 and order dated 11.6.1999 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-18 and the tax bill dated 15.1.1999, issued by respondent No. 1, vide Annexure P-15.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 assessed the annual rental value of the godown for the year 1983-84 at the rate of Rs. 45,400/- per annum and imposed house tax to the tune of Rs. 6,129/- after giving admissible rebate of 10%. In the year 1986 respondent No. 1 issued a notice under Sections 65/68 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for assessment of the property Godowns No. 1858 @ Rs. 72,600/- for the year 1987-88. The petitioner contested the notice on the ground that the total constructed capacity of the godowns was 4420 MTS floor area and the annual rental value comes to Rs. 40,980/- @ Rs. 0.10 P per bag per month. After deducting 10% depreciation net annual rental value comes to Rs. 36,882/- on which house tax is calculated as Rs. 5532.80. On 14.5.1987 respondent No. 1 issued a bill for the recovery of the house tax amounting to Rs. 9,450/- for the year 1987-88 on the annual rental value of Rs. 70,000/- per year and on 5.5.1992 respondent No. 1 issued notice under Sections 65/67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for increase in the annual rental value @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per year for the year 1992-93. On 16.6.1992 the petitioner filed objections to the effect that there was no increase in any constructed capacity and that annual rental value of the property has to be worked out in accordance with Section 8(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act. It is the grouse of the petitioner that without hearing, the assessment order was passed by respondent No. 1 and the annual rental value was assessed at Rs. 1,20,000/- on 26.6.1992. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 26.6.1992 which was dismissed as time barred on 27.7.1994. On 10.7.1996 the Sub Divisional Officer of the Corporation issued a certificate that constructed capacity of the godown is 7480 MTS. On 8.9.1996 the High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Authority to decide the case on merits. On 4.8.1997 the Municipal Committee fixed annual rental value @ Rs. 1,20,000.- for the year 1992-93. The petitioner filed an appeal on 17.8.1998 and the case was remanded on 11.6.1999. The Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for the year 1998-99 vide impugned order Annexure P-18. With these allegations the petitioner Corporation has challenged the orders Annexure P- 14, P-15 and P-18. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed on their behalf. The stand of the respondents is that the capacity of the godown is 9900 MTS. The godown in question has been hired from the petitioner corporation by the Food Corporation of India and the capacity of the godown as kept reserved for the Food Corporation of India is 8388 MTS. Hence by any stretch of imagination it cannot be construed that the capacity of the godown is 7480 MTS as alleged by the petitioner. In addition to the space let out to the Food Corporation of India in the godown in question, the space has been let out by the petitioner corporation to other agencies such as Shellers etc. As per letter Annexure R-1/1 dated 26.9.1995 issued by the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lehragaga rent per month is @ 43 paise per square foot and the reserved area is 8388 MT. It is the stand of the respondent that while making the annual assessment of the rent of the godown, rate at the rate of 20 paise per bag has been taken into consideration and in this manner rental comes to Rs. 2,37,600/- per year after giving depreciation @ 10%. Justifying the action on behalf of the respondents, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance we have gone through the records of the case.;