R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) PLAINTIFF has filed a suit against Municipal Corporationdelhi for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation fromrecovering/enforcing the demand framed in its bill dated 1. 9. 1993, Annexure Athe plaint, in any manner and from recovering the property tax in respect ofproperty called HERALD HOUSE situate a5-A, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Newdelhi during the years 1985-86 onwards in excess of the ratable value of Rs. l,73,800. 00. During the pendency of this suit, plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 10506/for grant of ad-interim injunction. Ad-interim injunction was issued ex parte andnotice was issued to the Corporation. On putting in appearance the Corporationcontested the suit as well as this application. It appears that thereafter the plaintiffalso filed I. A. . No. 10916/93 under Ordcr 39 Rules 1and 2 read with Section 151codeof Civil Procedure ( code for short) for the same relief. Both these applicationshave been contested by the Corporation. They have also filed written statement. ( 2 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. Firsti called upon learned Counsel for the defendant to argue as to why an injunctionbe not granted restraining the Corporation from recovering the property tax as perannexure A. It may be noted that Annexure A is a revised bill sent by thecorporation to the plaintiff for recovery of property tax comprising of variouscompliments like general tax etc. in the sum of Rs. 1,02,62,794. 00 w. e. f 1. 12. 1988 to1993-94. She submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case ofgovernment Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. and Others, v. Union of India and Others, 1993 (3) Delhi Lawyer 269 (DB) upheld the amendmentin the Delhi Rent Control Act to the effect that the Delhi Rent Control Act will notbe applicable to properties in respect of which the monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3500. 00. According to her the necessary consequence is that the rateable value/annual value of the properties will be either on the basis of cost of construction ofthe property and if the same is let out, on the basis of actual rent received. It maybe noted that in the aforesaid authority contentions against the above propositionwere not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed. It maybe noted that in the aforesaid authority contentions against the above propositionwere not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed. She has also drawn myattention to a recent judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court of India in Municipalcorporation of Delhi v. C. L. Batra Civil Appeal No. 4671/94 wherein the assessewas directed to deposit admitted liability of Rs. 3 lacs, but by an interim order therecovery was stayed. After consideration of a number of authorities, Hon blesupreme Court in view of the authority, in the case of Shri Shy am Kishore andothers v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, JT 1992 (5) SC 335 heldsection 170 (b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to be intra vires because itonly barred the hearing of the appeal and disposal on merits and not the entertainment of the appeal u/sec. 169 DMC Act. That section provides for an appealagainst the assessment of property tax before the District Judge. The first reasongiven was that it was not statutorily explained why the statutory remedy of appealwas allowed to be by-passed. The second reason was that when the assessee hadfiled a writ petition, praying for similar relief, and when interim order was notgranted, he withdrew the writ petition and filed the suit which was an abuse ofprocess of law. The third reason was that in case of Siliguri Municipality and Othersv. Amalendu Das and Others (1984) 2 SCR 344 the Supreme Court had vacatedinterim order staying recovery of tax. While doing so it pointed out: "the Court has to show awareness of the fact that in the case of a Municipalityit cannot function or meet its financial obligations if its source of revenue isblocked by an interim order restraining it from recovering the taxes as per theimpugned provision. The Municipality has to maintain essential civic services, run public institutions, purchase supplies and pay the salaries of itsemployees etc. The grant of an interlocutory order would paralyse theadministration and dislocate the entire working. These serious ramificationswere lost sight of by the High Court in the instant case while making theimpugned order. " ( 3 ) IN the present case also learned Counsel for the Corporation pointed outthat the plaintiff filed a writ petition No. 5556/93 for the same relief in this Courtin which rule was issued but stay was not granted. The fact that stay was refusedis not disputed by learned Counsel for the plaintiff. " ( 3 ) IN the present case also learned Counsel for the Corporation pointed outthat the plaintiff filed a writ petition No. 5556/93 for the same relief in this Courtin which rule was issued but stay was not granted. The fact that stay was refusedis not disputed by learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for theplaintiff submitted that a civil suit was maintainable when certain demand is raisedby the Corporation regarding property tax which is not within the competence ofthe Corporation and thus without jurisdiction. However, it is difficult to agree tothe argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. I am not at all convinced thatthe impugned recovery of property tax is prima facie without jurisdiction becauseit was held in the case of Government Servants Co-operative House Buildingsociety Ltd. and Others (supra) that in case of property being let out for more thanrs. 3500. 00 per month, the rateable value will be on the basis of actual rent received. If the plaintiff was aggrieved against such recovery, the proper remedy will be byway of an appeal under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and ithas been so clearly held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Shyamkishore and Others (supra ). If that be so, a suit prima faice cannot be filed for aninjunction for stay of recovery of the property tax. Moreover, it may be noted thatthe plaintiff has failed to obtain a stay order regarding the recovery of this veryamount in the writ petition filed by it. Therefore, I am of the view that there is noprima fade case in favour of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience will alsorequire that the recovery which is being sought against the plaintiff be not stayedin view of additional reasons given in Siliguri Munidpality case (supra ). Therecord shows that the plaintiff is recovering huge amounts by way of rent from thedisputed property from various tenants. Therefore, there is no question of anyhardship also. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, I am ofthe view that plaintiff is not entitled to the grant of ad-interim relief of injunctionas prayed for in these applications which are accordingly dismissed. SUIT may now be listed for further proceedings before the Court on 5/12/1994.