MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. M/S PIYUSH TRADERS (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts in brief are that M/s Piyush Traders Private Limited, respondent No. 1, in both the writ petitions has constructed property bearing Municipal No. 8-II/33, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. The petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in both the writ petitions has sent a notice dated 30th March, 1984 proposing to fix the rateable value at Rs. 1,62,000/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1983. Respondent No. 1 filed objections to the said notice raising the plea that soon after constructing the building the same was let out to M/s Jainsons Engineers Private Limited w.e.f. 1.10.1983 for a period of 2 years vide a licence deed dated 26th October, 1983 at the rental of Rs. 6000/- per month, but the said tenant vacated the premises by the end of December, 1983 and the same came to be let out to American Embassy w.e.f January 1, 1984 on a monthly rental of Rs. 15000/-. Hence the plea was taken that as the first letting has been made to M/s Jainsons Engineers Private Limited, the rent of Rs. 6000/- per mensem under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act would be deemed to be the standard rent and the same could be taken as a basis for fixing the rateable value of the property in question for assessing property tax. The Assessing Authority after considering the objections and documents produced before it, however, gave the finding that the house in question was not fit for occupation till January 4, 1984 and thus, there could not be any letting of unconstructed house and in fact, it was a camouflage letting made to show the less rateable value and in fact the first letting after completion of the house took place in favour of American Embassy at the rent of Rs. 1500/- per mensem and the said rent has to be treated as a standard rent for 5 years and, thus, he fixed the rateable value at Rs. 2350/- for vacant plot from 1st April, 1983 and Rs. 64,800/- w.e.f. 1.10.1983 and at Rs. 1,59,890/- w.e.f. 4.1.1984. This assessment was made in respect of the year 1983-84 and in respect of the year 1984-85 the same rateable value was fixed. As a matter of fact if a finding has to be given that first letting was made in favour of American Embassy at the rental of Rs. 15,000/- per month, then in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the said rent has to be treated as standard rent for a period of 5 years.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 was not satisfied of the aforesaid assessment orders and two appeals were filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Shri B.S. Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, the competent authority under the Act, who heard and accepted the appeals, gave a finding that in fact the first letting took place to M/s Jainsons Engineers Private Limited at the rental of Rs. 6000/- and the said rent has to be treated as standard rent for a period of 5 years and he thus modified the assessment order and fixed the rateable value at Rs. 64,800/- w.e.f 1.10.1983.

(3.) IN the counter to both the writ petitions, respondent No. 1 pleaded that the first Appellate Authority was right in coming to the conclusion from the documents and the evidence available before him that the first letting did take place of the constructed house in favour of M/s Jaisons Engineers Private Limited and at the rental of Rs. 6000/- per mensem. In the appeal against the Assessment Order for the year 1983-84 respondent No. 1 had deposited the property tax, while in the appeal against the order pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85, an application was made before the Additional District Judge for permission to stay the deposit of the property tax but the Additional District Judge required the respondent No. 1 to deposit only part of the property tax and which was deposited and thus, it was pleaded by respondent No. 1 that both the appeals were rightly heard by the first Appellate Authority. It has also been urged by respondent No. 1 in the counters that there is a discretion vested in the Appellate Authority to pass any order with regard to the deposit of property tax before hearing the appeal. The authority could even waive the deposit of the tax completely. Reference has been made to different provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act to highlight the plea that it is not clear as to what amount of property tax is to be deposited before aggrieved person can get a hearing in his appeal.