JUDGMENT

ORDER :—Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General.

2. The impugned judgment by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court overrules the decision of a Division Bench in Municipal Corporation. Indore v. Smt. Ratnaprabha Dhanda. Indore, 1989 MPLJ 20. The challenge in this special leave petition is to the correctness of the Full Bench decision. The question involved relates to the construction of Section 138(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short the "M.P. Act") which reads as under :-

"The annual value of any building shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which such building, together with its appurtenances and any furniture that may be let for use or enjoyment therewith might reasonably at the time of assessment be expected to be let from year to year,less any allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross annual rent." (Emphasis supplied)

3. In the High Court the matter was not res integra being concluded by the authority of the direct decision by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Smt. Ratna Prabha, (1977) 1 SCR 1017, on the correct construction of Section 138(b) of the M.P. Act. No other direct decision of this Court is to the contrary. However, the Division Bench of the High Court in a later case between the very same parties took a different view on the construction of the same provision placing reliance on some other decisions of this Court wherein the question arose for decision in the context of a similar provision in some other statutes applicable in the other States wherein there was no non obstante clause as in the M.P. Act. The Division Bench took the view that the decision of this Court in Ratna Prabha (supra) was not binding on it even though it related to construction of the same provision, namely, Section 138(b) of the M.P. Act since it was in conflict with later decisions of this Court by co-equal Benches in Dewan Daulat Raj Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980) 2 SCR 607and Dr. Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation Delhi, (1985) 2 SCR 439. Accordingly it proceeded on the basis that the decision of this Court in Ratna Prabha, (AIR 1977 SC 308) (supra) is no longer good law binding on it. This situation gave rise to the need for a Full Bench to consider the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench. The Full Bench has overruled the decision of the Division Bench. In our opinion, the Full Bench was right in its view that the decision of this Court in Ratna Prabha (supra) binds the High Court. There is no ground to entertain this special leave petition which challenges the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court.

4. The only direct decision of this Court on the construction of Section 138(b) of the M.P. Act, with which we are concerned, is Ratna Prabha. (AIR 1977 SC 308) (supra). It referred to the earlier decision in The Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi, (1962) 3 SCR 49 and distinguished it on the ground that Section 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1923 on which the decision in Padma Debi (supra) was based, did not contain a non obstante clause like that in Section 138(b) of the M.P. Act. The other earlier decisions of this Court in which construction of similar provision in other statutes was involved were also referred and distinguished in Ratna Prabha (1977 (1) SCR 1017; and it was then held as under :-

"As has been stated, clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act provides that the annual value of any building shall "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force "be deemed to be the gross annual rent for which the building might "reasonably at the time of the assessment be expected to be let from year to year". While therefore the requirement of the law is that the reasonabl