Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered adverse concurrent findings by the two Courts below, defendant/appellant herein is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.1991 passed by learned trial Court, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.05.1993, decreeing the suit filed by respondent herein for permanent injunction restraining defendant/appellant herein from raising demand of Rs.8100/- as house tax for the year 1986-87 on the basis of notice under Section 67 of PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT , 1911 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Briefly stated, facts as noticed by learned Courts below are that premises occupied by plaintiff are assessed to house tax since 30.03.1978. Defendant was paying house tax regularly. On 26.11.1986, notice under Section 67 of Act proposing to enhance the annual rental value from Rs,17,328/- to Rs.68,615/- was received. After receipt of said notice, plaintiff filed representation to the effect that enhancement of annual rental value was not justified as it had not made any material addition or alterations in the premises but the same was not heeded to. Hence the suit.

4. Upon notice, respondent/appellant herein appeared and filed written statement taking legal objections that suit is bad for want of notice under Section 49 of the Act; that State of Punjab is a necessary party and civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

4.1 On merits, it was stated that requisite notice was served and objections were invited to the proposed amendment and therefore, demand was legal and valid.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

“(1). Whether the demand of Rs.8100/- as house tax for the year 1986-87 from the plaintiff by the defendant is valid, illegal for the reasons mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

(3) Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred ? OPD

(4) Whether Punjab State is a necessary party to the suit ? OPD

(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 49 of the PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT ? OPD

(6) Relief.”

6. The parties to suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidence vis-à-vis pleadings, issues No.1 and 2 were decided by learned trial Court in favour of plaintiff. Issues No.3 to 5 were decided against defendant/appellant herein. Consequently, suit of plaintiff/respondent was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.1991.

8. Feeling aggrieved, defendant/appellant went in appeal which was dismissed by learned First Appellate Court, resulting in instant Regular Second Appeal by defendant before this Court.

9. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the judgments of both the Courts below.

10. This regular second appeal raises the following substantial question of law :

Whether civil Court jurisdiction to entertain the suit is barred under Section 84 and 86 of the Act?

11. On a Court query, learned counsel for appellant submits that respondent/plaintiff is not appearing as there is nothing much left for it to contest the instant appeal in view of the fact that entire arrears qua house tax have already been paid to appellant-Committee and suit filed by respondent/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for appellant has placed implicit reliance upon Apex Court judgment rendered in NDMC v. Satish Chand (deceased) by Lr Ram Chand,