P RAMANKUTTY MENON Vs. COMMISSIONER TIRUVOTTIYUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respective unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.137 and 41 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, who also lost in A.S.Nos.53 and 51 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.IV and Additional District Court, Ponneri, are the appellants in S.A.Nos.449 and 626 of 2009 respectively.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.41 of 2002 in brief is as follows:-(i) THE plaintiff therein is the owner of the building bearing Door Nos.85 and 85A, T.H.Road, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, which consists of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and a third floor and besides there is another building on the northern side of the building which is used as a car shed and the basement of the building and the southern side of the building were used as go downs. According to the plaintiff, the third floor of the building is used as a residential building occupied by the plaintiff and his family members and the building on the northern side in the ground floor is used as a car shed. Previously, the ground, the first, and the second floors are rented to third parties and the entire building bearing Door Nos.85 and 85-A were assessed to property tax as follows:-(i) the half yearly property tax for the basement under Assessment No.25533 was Rs.2,102/-(ii) the half yearly property tax for the ground floor was Rs.9,672/-(iii) the half yearly property tax for the ground floor was Rs.9,672/-(iv) the half yearly property tax for the second floor was Rs.4,232/-(v) the half yearly property tax for the residential third floor was Rs.2,102/- and(vi) the tax for car shed was Rs.532//- and the go down was Rs.1,130/-And the plaintiff was paying the same promptly. According to the plaintiff, all of a sudden, notices were served on the plaintiff by the defendant on 30.09.1999 by which the property tax was enhanced by 100%. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Government had issued an Order with a specific direction that the property tax should not be enhanced by more than 25% as per a Government Order since they are residential building and a car shed. It is contended by the plaintiff that the annual rental value of the property tax should be arrived at only as per the formula contained under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, but the special notices do not mention how the annual value was arrived at. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant has not followed the procedure contemplated under the Act to arrive at the annual value and the enhancement of the property tax is unjustified. Admittedly, the plaintiff preferred an appeal dated 05.10.1999 to the Commissioner and thereafter a revision dated 18.0.2001 to the Chairman, Tiruvottiyur Municipal Council, but, according to the plaintiff, there was no proper response. Since the property taxes have been enhanced arbitrarily and unreasonable the same is not valid. (ii) THE suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement inter-alia contending as follows:-THE defendant denies the allegations in the plaint and states that the suit is not maintainable. THE defendant stated that all the floors are rented to the third parties. THE defendant originally assessed property tax for the suit property taking consideration of the market value of the land and the building prevalent then and following the procedure as laid down in fixing fair rent under Section 4 of the said Act. THE property tax was levied by the defendant as per Rule 14 (2) of the Taxation and Finance Rules Framed under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE defendant enhanced the property tax as per the circular issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration in R.O.C.No.60572/98 RD dated 08.01.1999. THE plaintiff preferred an appeal dated 05.10.1999 to the Commissioner, Tiruvottiyur Municipality and the appeal was confirmed by the Chairman as per the rules and the regulations.