IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (220) RSA No. 4464 of 1999 (O&M)

Reserved on : 24.03.2026 Pronounced on : 02.04.2026 Uploaded on : 02.04.2026 Municipal Council, Sangrur ...Appellant Versus Ajay Gupta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1996 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and the judgment dated 24.02.1999 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by it against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has also been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.

3. The facts, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, are that the respondents-plaintiffs Ajay Gupta and others filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the assessment order dated 22.04.1994 passed by the House Tax Sub Committee and the order dated 05.04.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority are illegal, null and void.

4. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are owners of shop bearing No. B-3/259. They purchased the shop from one Mehar Chand. At the time of purchase of the shop, Banarsi Dass was a tenant in the said shop at a monthly ₹ ₹

rent of @ 75/-, which was later enhanced by mutual agreement from 75/-

₹

to 90/- w.e.f. 10.07.1987.

5. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that the defendant-Municipal Council, Sangrur imposed house tax upon the plaintiffs in violation of mandatory provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Further, no notice as required under Sections 65 and 67 of the Act was served upon the plaintiffs and the annual rental value had been arbitrarily enhanced. The ₹

demand of house tax of 4,738.50 paise from the plaintiffs as raised by the defendant-Municipal Council was thus, challenged as illegal. The plaintiffs have also served legal notice upon the defendant but no reply was given. Thus, prayer was made that disputed order of assessment dated 22.04.1994 be set-aside being illegal, null and void and defendant be also restrained from demanding the house tax on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 22.04.1994 and the order of the appellate authority dated 05.04.1995 is also illegal, null and void. .

6. Notice of the said suit was given to the defendant-Municipal Council, Sangrur, who contested the suit by filing the written statement, wherein, it was averred that the rental value of the shop in dispute is ₹

18,000/- per annum. Service of notice was admitted by the defendant. It was further averred that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the Act. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

7. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as 4 issues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the appellant-

st defendant was also dismissed by the learned 1 Appellate Court. Hence, the regular second appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained under Section 85 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Learned counsel further submitted that the assessment was carried out strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions, after issuing notice and considering objections of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, he submitted that the respondents- plaintiffs had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent authority, which stood dismissed and, therefore, the civil suit was not maintainable. Th