Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N.BHAGWATI, R.S. PATHAK AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.
Dr. Balbir Singh and others etc., Petitioners
Versus
M/s. M.C.D. and others, etc, Respondents.
W. P. Nos. 483-86, 471 of 1980 etc., D/- 12-12-1984.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. Rangarajan, Mr. S. C. Misra, Sr. Advocates, Mr. M. S. Batta, Miss. Kailash Mehta, Mr. & Mrs. M. Quamruddin, Mr. B. B. Tawakloy, M/s. Shrinath Singh, Mr. Mohan Pandey, Mr. Rajiv Datta, Miss. Renu Gupta, Mr. D. K. Garg, Mr. S. R. Srivastava, M/s. D. R. Gupta, Mr. B. R. Kapoor, Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Mr. R. B. Dattar, Mr. K. B. Rohtagi and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocates with them for Petitioners; Mr. L. N.Sinha, Attorney General of India, Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Mr. R. B. Dattar and Miss Sieta Vaidlingam, (Not Present) Advocates for Respondents. Mr. S. K. Mehta, Advocate for Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana.
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 - Section 2(3), 113 to 184, 115(4)(6), 114(1), 116(1), 120(3) - Punjab Municipal Act 1911 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 9, 12, 6(2)(b) - Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 - Rent Act, 1960 - Section 6 (1)(A)(2)(b) - Land - Determination of Rateable Value - Fixation of Rent - Market Price of Land - Writ petitions and appeals raise interesting questions of law in regard, to determination of rateable value of certain categories of properties situate in Union territory of Delhi - Questions are of great importance since they affect liability of a large number of property owners in Union territory of Delhi to pay property tax - Appeals arise out of writ petitions filed in High Court of Delhi challenging assessments made by Municipal Corporation while writ petitions fall broadly into two categories - One category consisting of writ petitions which were originally filed in High Court of Delhi but were subsequently transferred to this Court, while other consisting of writ petitions which were filed directly in this Court - Writ petitions filed directly in this Court are not maintainable since none of them complains of violation of any fundamental right and ordinarily would have rejected them straightway without going into merits - Whether building has been let out to a tenant who has lost his right to apply for fixation of rent by reason of aspiration of period of limitation - Whether figure of standard rent of a building should be taken as its rateable value even where rent which owner reasonably expects to get from a hypothetical tenant - Whether any of distinct and separate units of occupation comprised in building are self-occupied or tenanted - Whether building has been let out to a tenant who has lost his right to apply for fixation of rent by reason of aspiration of period of limitation prescribed by S. 12 of Rent Act - Whether distinct and separate unit of which standard rent is to be determined is self-occupied or tenanted – Held, Addition may be of a distinct and separate unit of occupation and in such a case, the rateable value of premises would have to be determined on basis of formula laid down by us for assessing rateable value of premises which are partly self-occupied and partly tenanted - Same principles for determining rateable value would obviously apply in case of subsequent additions to existing premise - Basic point to be noted in all these cases is - and this is what court have already emphasised earlier - Formula set out in sub-ss. (1)(A)(2)(b) and (l)(B)(2)(b) of S. 6 cannot be applied for determining standard rent of an addition as if that addition was only structure standing on land - Assessing authorities cannot determine standard rent of additional structure by taking reasonable cost of construction of Additional structure and adding to it the market price of land and applying.statutory percentage of 71/2 to aggregate amount - Market price of land cannot be added twice over, once while determining standard rent of original structure and again while determining standard rent of additional structure - Once addition is made, formula set out in sub-ss. (l)(A)(2)(b) and (1)(B)(2)(b) of S. 6 can be applied only in relation to premises as a whole and where additional structure consists of a distinct and separate unit of occupation, standard rent would have to be apportioned in manner indicated by court in earlier part of this Judgment - These are principles on which rateable value of different categories of properties is liable to be assessed under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 - Same principles would a fortiori apply also in relation to assessment of rateable value under Punjab Municipal Act 1911 - Since there are a number of writ petitions and appeals before court and they involve different fact-situations Court do not think, it would be convenient to dispose them of finally by one single Judgment – Court would therefore direct that these writ petitions and appeals shall be placed on Board on some convenient date so that they can be disposed of in light of principles laid down in this judgment - Order accordingly.
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J. :- This group of writ petitions and appeals raise interesting questions of law in regard, to determination of rateable value of certain categories of properties situate in the Union territory of Delhi. The questions are of great importance since they affect the liability of a large number of property owners in the Union territory of Delhi to pay property tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 and the Punjab Municipal Act 1911. The appeals before us arise out of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging assessments made by the Municipal Corporation while the writ petitions fall broadly into two categories - one category consisting of writ petitions which were originally filed in the High Court of Delhi but were subsequently transferred to this Court, while the other consisting of writ petitions which were filed directly in this Court. We are definitely of the view that the writ petitions filed directly in this Court are not maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution since none of them complains of violation of any fundamental right and ordinarily we would have rejected them straightway without going into the merits, but the parties before us agreed that in view of the fact that these writ petitions involve identical questions as the appeals and the other writ petitions transferred to this Court and those questions would in any event have to be determined by us, we should not dismiss these writ petitions on the ground of non-maintainability but should proceed to dispose them of on merits on the assumption that they are maintainable.
2. We are concerned in these appeals and writ petitions with four different categories of properties namely : (i) where the properties are self-occupied, that is, occupied by the owners; (ii) where the properties are partly self-occupied and partly tenanted; (iii) where the land on which the property is constructed is leasehold land with a restriction that the leasehold interest shall not be transferable without the approval of the lessor and (iv) where the property has been constructed in stages. The question is as to how the rateable value is to be determined in respect of these four categories, of properties. So far as properties sittuate, in the Union territory of Delhi except New Delhi are concerned, the determination of purpose -of assessability to property tax is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 while the determination of rateable value for the purpose of assessability to property tax in respect of properties situate in New Delhi is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act 1911. The relevant provisions of both these statutes in respect of determination of rateable value for the purpose of assessability of property tax are almost identical as observed by this Court in Dewan Daulat Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980) 2 SCR 607 and it would therefore be sufficient if we refer to the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. Whatever we say in regard to determination of rateable value under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 would apply equally in relation to determination of rateable value under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911.
3. The definitions of the expressions used in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 are to be found in S 2 of that Act. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 2 defines building to mean "a house, out-house, stable latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter." Rateable Value is defined in S. 2 sub-sec. (47) to mean "the value of any land or building fixed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the bye-laws made thereunder for the purpose of assessment to property taxes". Chap. VIII of the Act deals with the subject of taxation and it comprises Ss. 113 to 184. Clause (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 113 provides tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
