Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1290 (AP)

Kunapareddi Leela Anand v. Ongole Municipality

2003-10-21

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2003
( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed in A. S. No. 68 of 1991 dated 24. 4. 1995 confirming the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ongole in O. S. No. 180 of 1987 dated 07. 10. 1991 the present appeal is filed by the appellant who is the owner of the house. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the Ongole Municipality enhanced the house tax to the house of the appellant bearing assessment No. 17801 for the period from 1986 to 1990 from Rs. 1,251-80ps to Rs. 5,784-80 per half year. Aggrieved by the same, he approached both the trial court and the appellate court and the same were ended in dismissal. Hence, the present appeal is filed. ( 3 ) IT is stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendant-Municipality without following the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act or the norms laid down under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Valuation) Control Act assessed the tax. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the written statement filed by the defendant-Municipality it is stated that taking into consideration the amenities in the building and the location of the building the Municipality has reasonably fixed the rental value of Rs. 900/- p. m. casing on that statement the defendant-Municipality, evied the tax on the schedule house. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel submits that the court below without looking into the provisions of the Municipality Act with regard on the house tax leviable in a general revision dismissed the suit with an observation that Ex. A4-rent agreement, dated 16. 02. 1986 shows that the plaint schedule property was let out to the Prakasam District Schedules Castes Service Co-Operative Society on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- and basing on that document, the Municipality has corrective enhanced the tax from Rs. 1251-80 to Rs. 5,784-80ps per half year. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal with an observation that in the written statement, the defendant-Municipality has wrongly mentioned the rental value for the suit house of Rs. 900/- per month as it appears to have filed a proto type written statement by filling up gaps in it. 1251-80 to Rs. 5,784-80ps per half year. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal with an observation that in the written statement, the defendant-Municipality has wrongly mentioned the rental value for the suit house of Rs. 900/- per month as it appears to have filed a proto type written statement by filling up gaps in it. ( 6 ) THE maximum house tax that can be levied is fixed at 25% basing on the rental value of the building under the Act and the Municipal Council is authorized to fix the tax at a lesser percent of the rental value. If the building is given on lease, it is well settled law that 40% of the rent has to be deducted towards amenities of the building and any tax to be levied is only on the remaining ground rent. Assuming for a moment that are rental value of the house is arrived at by the court at Rs. 2,500/- per month, after deducting 40% of the rent towards amenities, the annual rent comes to 12,000/- and the house tax leviable would be Rs. 3,000/- per year and Rs. 1500/- per years. If we take the rental value of the house at Rs. 500/- per month, the annual rent works out Rs. 8,400/- and even if the tax is levied on the entire amount without any deduction for amenities the tax payable works out Rs. 2,100/- per year and Rs. 1,050/- per years. Further, the respondent did not specify the percentage of the rental value fixed by the Municipal Council for the collection of house tax. Viewed from any angle, the tax levied has no basis what so ever and the same cannot be sustained in law. ( 7 ) SRI Sreenivas Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no specific question of law that can be adjudicated in this case. The very fact that the Corporation fixed the tax arbitrarily without reference to the provisions of the Act and the judgments followed from that are vitiated, that itself will be the substantial question of law in this case. Nextly he submitted that nowhere in the plaint it is mentioned that the tenant has vacated the house. The very fact that the Corporation fixed the tax arbitrarily without reference to the provisions of the Act and the judgments followed from that are vitiated, that itself will be the substantial question of law in this case. Nextly he submitted that nowhere in the plaint it is mentioned that the tenant has vacated the house. The trial court while dismissing the suit categorically stated in its judgment that the plaintiff has not only stated in his evidence that the building was vacated by the tenant and the building is vacant since six years prior to his evidence in the suit but also filed a petition to that effect. Hence the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipality Sri Sreenivas cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, hold that the entire proceedings of the Municipality as well as the courts below are vitiated and they are the result of non-application of mind by the concerned. Hence, I have no option except to set aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Ongole in O. S. No. 180 of 1987 as confirmed by the Additional District Judge in A. S. No. 68 of 1991 and demand the matter for fresh consideration as per law. While fixing the tax payable, basing on the evidence available on record, the court below shall consider the aspect whether the tenant who executed the agreement under Ex. A4 lease deed is in occupation of the building at the time of the revision of the tax or not. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs.