Principles of Rent Control Act not followed while making annual assessment.

This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in A.S.No.23 of 1989, dated 9.9.1989 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Pollachi made in O.S.No.191 of 1985, dated 11.1.1985.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for a declaration that the assessment made by the appellant- Pollachi Municipality in respect of his house property situated in door No.29, New Alagappa Layout, Pollachi was illegal and consequential injunction to restrain the appellant from collecting the tax with the following averments. The respondent purchased the house site in the layout formed in T.S.No.7 within Pollachi Town and constructed a house in plot No.29. The said lay out was only a new one, in which there was no water tap connection. Only a few houses have been constructed and it is not a fully developed area. In the house construed by the respondent, the entire work is not completed. The appellant Municipality sent a special notice in notice No.256540, dated 3.12.1984 fixing an imaginary annual rent for the building in plot No.29. The annual rental value fixed in the notice has no relevance to the prevalent rental value. The appellant on fixing the annual rental value at Rs.4,800 has demanded Rs.612.50 as property tax. The appellant has not given any particulars as to how the rental value was arrived at. The respondent filed a petitioner before the appellant objecting the proposed assessment. The appellant Municipality sent an order dated 17.1.1985 by which the respondent was informed that the rental value for the second half year of 1984-85 has been reduced to Rs.4,200 an demanded half year of 1984-85. The order did not spell out how the rental value was determined. Hence the respondent sent a revision petitioner to the appellant on 29.1.1985 bringing out the necessary facts and informing the appellant that the annual rental value determined for the similar houses and even bigger houses situated in the said layout was very much low than the rental value fixed for the respondents house. The appellant Municipality sent an order on the petitioner filed by the respondent on 12.3.1985 stating that the tax levied has been confirmed and without saying any reason for dismissing the petition. The tax levied by the appellant was arbitrary, capricious and against the provisions of the District Municipalities Act. The appellant has not given any details as to two the rental value of the building was arrived at. Though the respondent has brought out to the notice of the appellant about the quantum of the tax levied on the newly built up houses in the vicinity, the appellant had failed to consider, but dismissed the revision petition of the respondent without adducing any reason. The Municipality has not adopted any procedure contemplated in law to arrive at the annual rental value of the building or did not take into account of the taxes levied for the similar building situated in the same layout. Thus the tax levied by the appellant Municipality was illegal and arbitrary and the suit has been filed for the above relief of declaration.

3. The appellant Municipality contested the suit by alleging that the respondent had constructed a dwelling house in the New Alagappa Layout; that on the date of inspection, the construction of the houses in the two portions was completed; that the house constructed by the respondent was for dwelling purposes; that the building has been assessed to property tax as per Sec.82(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which empowers the Executive Authority to assess the buildings on gross annual rents at which they may reasonably to expected to let from month to month or from year to year; that in the instant case, the rent assessed was a reasonable one, as the two portions one for the owner occupation and the other for letting out, could fetch a reasonable rent of Rs.400 per month; that the respondent sent a rev