1991 Supreme(Del) 319

High Court Of Delhi
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Appellant
Versus
PRAGATI BUILDERS AND N.R.D.C.OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 3281 of 1989
Decided On : 05/13/1991

Headnote:DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - Section 52(3), 2(24) and 114 — whether cost of lift installed in a building to be taken into account while fixing Rateable value of a building ? Terms "Land and Building" — Lift installed covered by the definition — Lift necessary for use and enjoyment of Building — To be taken into account for fixing rateable value.

       HELD :

       A close scrutiny of the definition of the term building reveals that it includes within its purview not only a house or a shed but even a wail or any other metal in order to install a lift in a building one has to raise a four walled structure with a roof over it. This in common parlance is known as a cage or a wall of the lift. The lift operates in the said cage or wall. It further consists of chains, straps which operate as a pulley on wheels which are permanently attached to the roof of the wall. Thus we are of the view it is positively a structure which squarely falls within the definition of a building.

       There is another aspect of the matter. We have already observed above that a lift can be installed in a building within a wall or cage. Thus one has to raise a permanent structure consisting, of 1/2 walls with a roof over it for the operation of a lift. Besides that it also requires certain other things such as chains, straps which operate as a pulley on wheels which are permanently attached and fastened to the roof. Hence, the said structure becomes a part and parcel of the building, Thus it is so to say a permanent fixture which cannot be removed from the said building without causing of damage to the same. It is well known that anything which is affixed to the soil becomes a part and parcel of the same. It is based on the maximum quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit (whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil) Furthermore, the above concept finds also mention in the definition of the land as defined under Section 2(24) of the Act. It includes within its ambit "things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." Admittedly, a lift is something which is attached and permanently fastened to earth. Consequently, we feel that the case of lift would be also covered by the definition of the word land alluded to above.

       Admittedly, the lift is something which is quite necessary for the use and enjoyment of a building and for the purpose for which it is intended to be used. The impugned building admittedly in the instant cases is being used for residential purposes. A lift in the said building has been installed for the use of the occupants of the said building. They use it for the purpose of ingress and egress to the said building. Hence, the lift is there for the better enjoyment of the said building. Judged by that standard also we feel a lift is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of the property tax of the said building.

       It can be safely concluded from above that in case a machinery is so annexed to the building that it has become a part thereof, and it is there for its better enjoyment, in the eventuality it is to be taken into account for the determination of its rateable value. We are thus of the view, from the conspectus of the above authorities that a lift is very much a part of the building and thus is to be taken into account for fixing the rateable value.

       DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - Section 114 — Building Constructed at various stages and at different periods of time — Determination of Rateable value of Building — Market value of land not to be taken into account while fixing valuation of pre-existing construction — (Decision by Supreme Court in Common Cause Registered Society v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 221) — Since matter directly decided and there is no ambiguity — Petition on behalf of Corporation for classification does not lie.

       The market value of value of the land cannot be added twice over once while determining the standard lent of the original structure and again while determining standard rent of the additional structure. Once the addition is made the formula set out in Sub-section (1)(a)(2)(b) and (1)(b)(2) of Section 6 can be applied only in relation to the premises as a whole. And where additional structure consist of distinct and separate unit of occupation the standard rent would have to be apportioned.

       The above view was followed by a brother Judge of this Court, Honble Justice B.N. Kirpal, in Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (31) (1987) Delhi Law Times 369. It was held "In the present case, thereforee, the value of the land as in 1958 has to be added to the cost of construction of the old building. thereforee, the market price of a part of the same land as in 1978 when construction of the new building started cannot be added to the cost of construction of the new building while determining the standard rent of the said building." (Para 38).

       The above view was again given vent to by the Honble Supreme Court in Common Cause Registered Society v. Union of India, reported as 32 (198?) DLT 406 : (AIR 1987 SC 2211) while declining the relief to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, "this Court had, thereforee, normally indicated that when at different stage additional construction was raised on the property already valued, the market value of the land was not to be taken into account while fixing the valuation of the pre-existing construction." The Corporation did not challenge the correctness of the decision but only wanted clarification. Since the matter has been directly decided and there is absolutely no ambiguity, an application of this type on behalf of the Corporation does not lie.