9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . per month, that the said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation in determining the rateable value of the premises, and that the Corporation determined the ratable value on the basis that the premises in dispute was fetching rent at the rate of R. 60/plus Rs. 78.26p. = Rs. 138.26p. It was submitted that the respondent (plaintiff) was entitled under S. 121(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to recover from the petitioner (tenant) the difference between the amount of the property tax levied on the property and the amount of tax which would be livable upon the premises if the said tax was calculated only on the amount of rent of Rs. 60/- per month paid by the petitioner (tenant) to the respondent without taking into consideration the sum of Rs. 78.26p. that was paid by the sub-tenants to the petitioner (tenant), that the respondent thus paid an extra sum of Rs. 561.75p. to the Municipal Corporation for the period 1969 to 1972, and that he was entitled to recover the same from the petitioner. The petitioner (tenant) contested the suit raising various pleas. 3. The suit was heard by Shri B. B. Gupta, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi. The respondent had earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . and S. N. Shankar J., held in Sunderdess Tola Ram v Municipal Corporation of Delhi, C. M. (M) No. 197 of 1971, decided on 26th March, 1973, that the right given by S. 121(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was set at naught by S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and that the-provisions of the Rent Act prevailed, it being a later and special statute. The learned Judge further observed that the decision of H, R. Khanna, C. J. was not noticed by the Division Bench. In the circumstances, the learned Judge considered that the questions involved in the case need to be decided by a larger Bench. 5. The learned Judge indicated the following two questions as arising for determination in the Revision:- (1). Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi can fix the annual ' rateable value at a figure higher than the, amount of rent paid by the tenant to the landlord by taking into consideration the amount of rent paid by the subtenants to the tenant; and (2) If so, whether the .landlord is en, titled to recover under Section 121 of the Corporation Act the enhanced amount of house tax from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of tenancy and the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxes levied upon him and the amount which would be livable upon him the said taxes were calculated an the amount of rent payable to him. (2)................................... (3) Any person entitled to receive any own under this Section shall have for the recovery there the same rights and remedies as it such sum were rent payable to him by the person from whom he is entitled to receive the same. 7. Lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and recovery of other charges ........................ (1) .............................. (2) Where a landlord pays in respect of the premises any charge for electricity or water consumed in the premises or any other charge levied by a local authority having jurisdiction in the area which. is , ordinarily payable by the tenant. he may recover from the tenant the amount so paid by him; but the landlord shall not recover hum the tenant whether by means of an increase in rent or otherwise the amount of any tax on building or land imposed in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant. 9. In Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman (1971) 1 FLR 639, (supra) H. R, Khanna C. J, considered this q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an annual rateable value of Rs. 50,240/-. In July, 1970, the Assistant Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi proposed to increase the rateable value from Rs, 50,240/- to Rs. 61,500/-, with effect from 1st April, 1970, on the ground that there were additions to the building and changes in the rent. The owners , of the building filed their objections to the said proposal, stating that there had been no increase in the rent which was being recovered by them from the !tenants , that some of the tenants bad constructions in made the Said building without the permission of the owners-landlords or of the Building Department of the Municipal Corporation. The Deputy Assessor and Collector made a verification at the site and confirmed that the owners-landlords were getting the same rent as before from the various tenants. He, however, took the view that by reason of the unauthorised constructions made by the tenants, the accommodation and the property had gone up and so should be the rental value. In that view, he increased the annual rateable value to Rs. 57,890/-. 11. The owners-landlords preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Delhi, but the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. With due respect we are unable to to agree with the above opinion of the Division Bench. In the first place, the' said opinion was an obiter dictum. In the second place, the reason given by the Division Bench for its view, namely that the Rent Control Act was a later and special statute was: not correct. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was enacted in 1957. At that time, the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952) was in force. it contained a provision in Section 6 thereof in terms identical with the provision in S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is not, Therefore, correct to proceed on the basis that S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , was a later provision. Further, as pointed out by H. R. Khanna C. J. in Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman (1971) 1 Delhi 639 (supra) the bar created by the provision in the Rent Control Act pertains to normal tax on a building occupied by a tenant, while S. 121(1) of the Corporation Act deals with the particular contingency where the property tax levied for the tenanted premises is more than the amount which would have been levied had the assessment been made on the basis of the rent payable by the tenant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
