S K VERMA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is by the owner of property bearing No. 4D/62, Old Rajinder Nagar.New Delhi, against the order dated Jan, 21,1987, of the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi, whereby he directed issue of notice of appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act,) on the petitioner depositing the amount of the property tax as required under Section 170 of the Act.

(2.) The property in question was earlier owned by Ram Saroop, brother of the petitioner, who had purchased the same from the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The petitioner purchased this property from his brother. This sale deed is dated March 10, 1978. The petitioner thereafter, it appears, reconstructed whole of the property. It is now storeyed house and the plot of land underneath measures 85.9 sq. yds.

(3.) A notice under Section 126 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the Deputy Assessor and Collector assessed the rateable value of the property at Rs. 21,060.00 with effect from 1.4.1979 and Rs. II,130.00 with effect from 1.4.1984. He took into account the fact that certain portion of the property had been let out and the rate of rent was taken to be the standard rent for a period of 5 years under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. In this petition, it is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the controversy between the parties if the order of the Dy. Assessor and Collector, which has been challenged in appeal by the petitioner, is in accordance with law, though the petitioner has contended that value of the land at the commencement of the construction has been wrongly fixed and allowances for certain deductions have not been given. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the order directing him to deposit the property tax would cause him undue hardship and that he was not in a position to deposit the same. The whole basis of attack is that the learned Addl. District Judge could not have directed him to deposit the property tax and made it a condition precedent for issuing notice of appeal to the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi.