A.N. PARASURAM BY HIS DULY CONSTITUTED AGENT A.P. NARAYANAN Vs. C.S. RAJAVELAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owners of Premises No. 24, Halls Road, Madras, of which the appellant is the tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 375.

(2.) ON 1st September, 1960 the fourth respondent, Corporation of Madras, issued a notice to the owners, under Rule 3 -A of Part 1 -A of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, proposing to amend, in the books of assessment, the annual valuation of the property as Rs. 9,555, and the tax payable thereon as Rs. 1,127 -49, and library cess at Rs. 29 -81 for the first half -year 1960 -61, and calling upon the owners to state their objections thereto, if any, on or before 3 P.M. on 8th September, 1960. By letter, dated 8th September, 1960 respondents 1 to 3 filed their objections to the proposed amendment of the property tax assessment books by revising the annual valuation, contending that the rent for the premises continued to be the same and that they had not caused any improvement or addition to be made to the premises to warrant the increase. The objection was overruled; but all the same, the value was reduced to Rs. 8,190 and the tax payable thereon was fixed at Rs. 966 -42 and the library cess at Rs. 25 -59. Since the revision of assessment occurred in the middle of two general revisions, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation issued a special notice as required under Rule 3 -A of Part I -A of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. This notice also informed the owners that they could file a petition for revising the assessment to the Commissioner within fifteen days of the service thereof. This special notice was issued an 12th September, 1960 and served on respondents 1 to 3, the owners. The owners thereupon filed a revision petition to the Commissioner. The Commissioner reduced the assessment by fixing the annual value at Rs. 6,006 and the half -yearly tax payable at Rs. 708 -70 and library cess at Rs. 18 -75. The owners did not object to this revision, by taking, further proceedings.

(3.) THE plea of collusion was found against by both the Courts below; and I am not impressed with the argument of the learned Counsel, for the appellant that the revision of assessment was brought about collusively by the Corporation and the owners. For one thing, a statutory authority like the Corporation could not be easily inferred to have colluded with the owners of a premises. For another thing, the owners would normally be expected not to ask for an increase in the assessment, because that would be a permanent valuation which they could not, at any stage, get reduced even after evicting the tenant. In any case, as the finding on the question of collusion is one of fact, I am unable to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below.