9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi can fix the annual rateable value higher than the rent paid by the tenant by considering the rent paid by subtenants. 2. Whether the landlord is entitled to recover the enhanced house tax from the tenant under Section 121 of the Corporation Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Fixing Annual Rateable Value Considering Subtenants' Rent The court did not permit this issue to be raised and decided in the present case. The suit was framed solely for the recovery of excess tax from the tenant. The tenant's challenge to the levy of the tax by the Corporation, which considered the rent paid by subtenants, was not entertained. The court noted that the validity of the levy concerns the Corporation and should be challenged in a separate proceeding with the Corporation as a party. Despite the Corporation's appearance in response to a notice issued by the learned single Judge, the court decided not to consider and decide this question. Issue 2: Recovery of Enhanced House Tax by Landlord Section 121 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act allows landlords to recover from tenants the difference between the property taxes levied and the amount that would be levied based on the rent payable to the landlord. This provision conflicts with Section 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which prohibits landlords from recovering any tax on the building or land from tenants. In Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman (1971), it was held that Section 121(1) of the Corporation Act prevails over Section 7(2) of the Rent Act. The court reasoned that Section 121 deals specifically with the contingency where the property tax exceeds the amount based on the rent payable by the tenant, thus having an overriding effect as a special provision. Contrarily, in Sunderdess Tola Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1973), a Division Bench opined that the Rent Control Act, being a later and special statute, prevails over the Corporation Act. This view was based on the principle that a later statute repeals earlier conflicting provisions. The present judgment disagreed with the Division Bench's opinion, considering it an obiter dictum and incorrect. The court highlighted that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was followed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but the latter's Section 7(2) mirrored a provision from the earlier Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Hence, the Corporation Act's Section 121(1) is the later and special provision. The court affirmed that Section 121(1) has an overriding effect over Section 7(2) of the Rent Control Act, as it addresses a specific contingency not covered by the general provision in the Rent Act. Conclusion: The court held that the landlord is entitled to recover the enhanced amount of house tax from the tenant under Section 121(1) of the Corporation Act, notwithstanding the contract of tenancy and the provisions of Section 7(2) and Section 4 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs.
|
