SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 1866

D.MURUGESAN, V.K.JAIN
N. D. M. C. – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Khanna – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Addl. Standing Counsel for NDMC.
For the Respondent: Nemo.

JUDGMENT :

V.K. Jain, J.;—

1. The respondent before us is assessed to property tax in the record of the appellant in respect of property No. 9, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. With effect from 01.06.1995, the respondent permitted M/s Bharti Cellular Ltd. to install a cellular antenna on the terrace of the aforesaid property at the rent of Rs 36,000/- per month. A notice, purporting to be under Section 77 of NDMC Act was issued by the appellant to the respondent on 15.12.1998, asking him to provide the following information:-

“10. Occupancy and rent (Portion-wise) with documents proof.

11. Similar information as given in Sr. No. 3 to 7 above in respect of addition alterations proposed/carried out in the premises from time to time.”

Vide reply dated 21.12.1998, the respondent stated that property No. 9, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, was self-occupied property and there had been no addition or alternation in the said property. A notice under Section 77 of NDMC Act was also sent to the respondent on 21.07.1999 which was replied by the respondent on 18.08.1999. It was stated in the reply that the status of the property had not been changed, it was a self-acquired property, was used for residential purpose only














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top