Liability for property tax persists for both transferor and transferee, with required notification processes under municipal law.

1. Leave granted.
Heard counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Corporation) against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by it. The matter pertains to assessment of property tax. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, submits that the problem arising herein is a common one and the decisions of the nature questioned herein are resulting in loss of substantial revenue legitimately due to the Corporation and, therefore, the questions arising herein must be decided by this Court authoritatively to serve as a guidance to the authorities under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Act).

3. Saket Properties Private Limited constructed a multi-storeyed building on plot No. 21, Yusuf Sarai Community Centre, New Delhi. Flats Nos. 302, 303 and 305 on the third floor of the said building were allotted to the respondent-Trigon Investment and Trading Private Limited-under a letter of allotment dated February 29,1984 (Annexure R-1) subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The respondent accepted the allotment and paid a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- by way of earnest money to Saket Properties. On February 23, 1986, says the respondent, possession of the said flats was handed over to and accepted by them (Annexure R-2). Neither the Saket Properties nor the respondent intimated the Corporation of the said allotment or delivery of possession. This is an admitted fact. It is also the admitted case of the parties that so far no sale deed (s) has been executed and / or registered in respect of the said flats- as appears to be the general position and practice obtaining in Delhi.

4. On July 11, 1990, the Deputy Assistant Assessor and Collector, M. C. D. issued a "call letter for hearing of the objection under S.126 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957" to the respondent requesting him to attend the office in connection with the finalisation of the rental value of the aforesaid flats. The respondent replied on July 17, 1990 stating that Sri K. K. Dwivedi, its authorised representative, is being deputed to represent the case and to discuss the matter and provide necessary information to the officer. On August 10, 1990, another notice was issued by the said office to the respondent to attend the office on August 17, 1990 along with necessary documents and evidence. On August 30, 1990, the Deputy Assistant Assessor and Collector made the order of assessment. The order dated August 30, 1990 recites the following facts:
(a) Though call letters dated July 11, 1990 and August 10, 1990 were sent to the tax-payer, no one had attended the office nor were any documents produced.
(b) The flats were purchased by the tax-payer from Saket Properties Private Limited (the original owner) and the possession of the flats was offered to the respondent on April 1, 1985. Accordingly, the liability of payment of property tax by the respondent is fixed from April 1, 1985 as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the builder/ promoter and the respondent.
(c) De jure title of the flats has not so far been bestowed upon the respondent because no proper sale deed has been executed.
(d) A notice under S.126 of the Act with consolidated R. V. for the entire building was given to the builder/promoter proposing the R. V.
(e) In the above circumstances, the assessment is made ex-parte; the rental value is determined at Rs. 3,37,800/- take the prevailing rental value in the said complex. The