Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1681 (DEL)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. BRIJESH KUMAR

2007-08-23

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2007
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in this case purports to be aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority, allowing the appeal of the respondent assessee. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the respondent assessee purchased the property in question,. e No. 77, Daya Nand Vihar, Shahdara by a registered sale deed, for a consideration of Rs. 9,80,000/- on 10-4-2000. The MCD issued a notice for fresh fixation of rateable value, proposing Rs. 1,37,450/ -. After considering objections, the assessing authority fixed the rateable value at Rs. 83,300/- with effect from 10-4-2000, by an order dated 29-7-2003. The assessee successfully appealed. The MCD, claiming to be aggrieved, has preferred this petition under Article 226. ( 3 ) IT is averred, and contended by Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, learned counsel that the appellate authority erred in setting aside the order of the assessing authority, which was justified in carrying out a fresh exercise of rateable value fixation, since the property had been sold and had therefore changed hands. This, it is contended, was in view of Bye law 5 (c) framed for determination of rateable value, by the MCD, in 1994. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent assessee on the other hand, contended that the mere fact that the property was sold, cannot be the basis of re-determination of rateable value; it continues to be on the original basis, wherever the property is not let out, and self occupied, as in the present case. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in in Lt. Colonel P. R. Chaudhary (Retd.) etc. v. MCD and Ors. , (2000) 4 SCC 577 to contend that priniciples of parity would apply. He also relied on the decision in M. C. D. v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, 100 (2002) DLT 679, and Sant Ram Saigal and Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 105 (2003) DLT 746 in support of the submission that neither the Bye-laws, nor the sale or purchase of property affords an an occasion to re-determine the rateable value. ( 5 ) IN Delhi Paints and Chemicals v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 105 (2003) DLT 746 in support of the submission that neither the Bye-laws, nor the sale or purchase of property affords an an occasion to re-determine the rateable value. ( 5 ) IN Delhi Paints and Chemicals v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr. , 50 (1993) DLT 207 (DB) it was held that the consequence of addition of clause (c) in Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is only that the Rent Act will not apply to any premises, whether residential or not, where monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500/ -. It was held that where premises are self-occupied, the concept of monthly rent cannot be introduced and for determination of annual value, one will have to fall back on the provisions of the Rent Act. In M. C. D. v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, 100 (2002) DLT 679, this court held as follows: ?6. I am unable to accept this submission advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The validity of the aforesaid Bye-laws was decided by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Delhi Urban House Owners? Welfare Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , 60 (1995) DLT 644 (DB ). The Division Bench upheld the validity of the bye-laws though certain bye-laws were struck being bye-law 3 (1) (a) 3 (1) (c) (II) Explanation and part of Explanation II to 3 (1) (e ). The Division Bench held that the basis of fixation of rateable value of any land or building is to be the annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. It was thus held that Sub- section (1) of Section 116 of the DMC Act, 1957 has to be read with the definition of the rateable value as contained in Sub-section (47) of Section 2 of the said Act. The bye-laws framed could not fix the rateable value at any figure more than the annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let. The concept of parity in house tax was again reaffirmed. 7. The reading of the judgment of Lt. Colonel P. R. Chaudhary?s case (supra), and of Delhi Urban House Owners? case (supra), clearly lead to only one conclusion that the principles for parity of house tax laid down in Dr. The concept of parity in house tax was again reaffirmed. 7. The reading of the judgment of Lt. Colonel P. R. Chaudhary?s case (supra), and of Delhi Urban House Owners? case (supra), clearly lead to only one conclusion that the principles for parity of house tax laid down in Dr. Balbir?s case (supra), must be followed and the same have not to be given a go-by post the bye-laws coming into force in 1994. ? the above reasoning was applied in Sant Ram Saigal's case. ( 6 ) THE previous discussion indicates that the incidence of taxation remains unchanged, and the sale of property, ipso facto cannot afford an opportunity for fixation of rateable value. The court has also held that introduction of the by-laws did not bring about a change in this position. Ms. Mehrotra had contended that letter patents appeals have been preferred in respect of the decision in Daruwala's case, which are pending consideration. ( 7 ) I am of the opinion that this petition is, in addition to being unmerited is belated. The order sought to be challenged was made in 2003; the mcd, which has enjoyed the differential amounts, deposited as a condition for the assessee's appeal, chose to sit over the issue, and prefer the petition considerably later. In the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed.