GOKAL CHAND MITAL,J - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2416, 2526, 3072 and 3782 of 1980, 3009, 3231, and 4575 to 4577 of 1984 and 555, 686, 687, 1418, 2281, 4962 and 1359 of 1985 as common question arises therein.
(2.) THE Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, (for short 'the Corporation') raised a demand of the house tax for different years from the petitioners. The properties are in the self occupation of the owner. From time to time the annual value was sought to be increased and higher house tax was being claimed. Through these writ petitions, this action of the Corporation is being challenged on the ground that Section 93(b) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), is applicable, whereunder it is the duty of the Corporation to assess the annual rent value of the premises for which the same may reasonably be expected to let, which value has to be determined on the basis of provisions of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Rent Act'). No determination was made in the aforesaid manner of the rental value and it was fixed arbitrarily by ignoring sub-section (b) of the Section 93 of the Act by making reference to sub-section (c) of the Section 93 of the Act which is not applicable to the case. In support of the argument, reliance is placed on a recent Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Punjab Concast Steels Ltd., Ludhiana v. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, A.I.R. 1985 (P&H) 287. The Division Bench has referred to the entire case law which had come into being by the time the judgment was rendered, and following the Supreme Court's decision in Devan Daulat Raj Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 541 and Corporation of Calcutta v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1417, it was held that even if the property is in self occupation of the owner and had never been let, yet the ratable value has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act. The D.B. had allowed the writ petition and the impugned orders were quashed with a direction to make fresh assessment in view of the decision. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these writ petitions are on all fours covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Punjab Concast Steel's case (supra). Several arguments were raised by Shri R.S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the Corporation to show that the aforesaid decision was not correct. All matter which he raised before me were considered by the Division Bench. I feel bound by the decision of the D.B. in Punjab Concast Steel's case (supra). Moreover, there is a recent judgment of the highest Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. M/C. M.C.D. and others, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 339, reiterating their decision in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor's case (supra), which also fully supports the case of the petitioner.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, all these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. However, it will be open the Corporation to proceed to make fresh assessment in accordance with law i.e. under Section 93(b) of the Act, after taking into consideration the observations made by the Division Bench in Punjab Concast Steel's case (supra). The Corporation would refund the excess recovered, within a reasonable time. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;