- (1.) The petitioner Corporation which admittedly constructed three godowns (2 in the year 1969 and one in the year 1972) within the rating area, i.e., the Municipal limits of Sirsa, a District Headquarter in the State of Haryana, at a cost of more than Rs. 25 lacs, impugns the order of the Assessing Authority dated 20th October, 1976 (Annexure P.2) and its affirmance by the revisional authority on 23rd July, 1977 (Annexure P.4) whereby in order to ascertain the annual value of these godowns, their gross annual rent has been estimated at Rs. 48,000/- for the purposes of the Punjab Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940. The challenge is that the gross annual rental value has not been fixed by the said authorities keeping in view the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 19049, which undisputably was in force in the area at the relevant time.
(2.) On behalf of the respondents it is pleaded that though the assessment of the gross annual value has strictly been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in rule 4 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1941 , yet the provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, dealing with the fixation of "fair rent" of a property covered by that Act are not in any way violated.
(3.) Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petition has to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. It is, no doubt, true that some of the judgments, including that of the final Court, have laid down that while fixing the gross annual value of a property for purposes of levy of house-tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 relating to the determination of fair rent have to be taken notice of yet. I find that in this case no fair rent of the property in question could possibly be fixed under Section 4 of the later-mentioned Act and in view of that the said Act has no relevance to the determination of the gross annual value of the property under the Act. It has recently been ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Shmt. Ram Piari etc. v. Jagan Nath, C.R. No. 1324 of 1976 decided on 30th October, 1981, that for fixation of "basic rent" - which is the pre-requisite for the determination of the fair rent under sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, only the evidence which is strictly in consonance with the type of evidence specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) can be taken in to account. If no evidence of that type is available then the Rent Controller cannot possibly fix the basic rent on any other evidence. In trhat situation, only the agreed rent between the parties has to be accepted as the fair rent. As already indicated, it is the admitted case here that the propereties in question were constructed much after the year 1939 (in the years 1969 and 1972) and, thus, the basic rent of these properties could not possibly be fixed, in terms of Section 4(2) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. I, therefore, find it difficult to go by the precedents to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;