MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. LACHHMI NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been referred to a large Bench by Dua CJ. (as his Lordship then was) with a view to reconcile certain previous decisions, which seemed to require reconciliation.

(2.) The facts leading to this Regular Second Appeal may be briefly noticed. The Respondent 1s the owner of property bearing four Municipal Nos. 2337, 2359, 2360, 2361, two of which, namely, 2337 and 2360, are shops and the other two are residential premises, all of them situate in Ward No. XVI, Gali No. 14, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi. It is common ground that prior to 1956 the annual house-tax for the entire property, comprising those four Municipal numbers, was Rs. 40.00. It was raised for the year 1957-1958 to Rs. 75.60 Paise.

(3.) A notice, Exhibit P. 3, was given on 6th October 1956, to the Respondent 1nforming him, baldly, that the previous value which, for the purpose of assessment, was Rs. 444.00 was proposed to be raised to Rs. 840.00. The respondent was required to inform the Assistant Secretary, Municipal Committee, Delhi, who had issued that notice under section 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act (3 of 1911), whether he had any objection to the same being raised. In his objections, the respondent stated that there were only two tenants, Kunja Lal and Prahlad Singh, occupying Nos. 2337 and 2360 respectively, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/2/(an obvious mistake for Rs. 3/8.00) and Rs. 10.00 respectively; the third tenant, Salig Ram, who was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 13/8.00 for occupation of No. 2361, having vacated it (on 16th April 1956) under orders of civil court he (the owner) occupied that portion also in addition to the portion which had always been in his occupation (assessed at Rs. 10.00 per mensem). It was pointed out that there was no change in the tenancy for the past several years except that the respondent had got possession of No. 2361 through court since he required the same for his own bonci fide occupation. None-thc-less the annual house-tax was enhanced to Rs. 75.60 Paise. The said order has not been filed or exhibited. Against the said decision the respondent preferred an appeal to the Additional District Magistrate, who is stated to have dismissed the appeal. Even that order has not been filed or exhibited.