Skip to content


Promila Dewan Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Appeal Nos. 91, 122, 148, 169, 170, 179, 203, 209, 222, 273, 283, 377, 380 and 476 of 198
Judge
Reported in20(1981)DLT435
ActsDelhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 116; Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 - Sections 3(1); Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 6 and 6(2)
AppellantPromila Dewan
RespondentMunicipal Corporation of Delhi
Cases ReferredD. Cowasji and Co. v. State of Mysore
Excerpt:
in the instant case, it was debated on whether the petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, would be maintainable, on account of delay in filing the same- it was observed that the said petition was based on the law pronounced by the supreme court and the petition was filed just after the decision of the supreme court - in view of the said fact, it was ruled that there was no undue delay in filing of the petition - accordingly, the writ petition was held to be maintainable - .....the punjab municipal act, 191 i in the case of houses situated under the jurisdiction of the new delhi municipal committee and under section 116 of the municipal corporation of delhi act. (2) the supreme court in the case of dewan daulat rai kapur v. new delhi municipal committee 1980 (1) r.g.j. 468 (s.g.)== 17(1980) d.l.t. 88 (sc), has held that the annual letting value of the property is to be determined with reference to the standard rent of the property which can be fixed under section 6 or section 9, as the case may be, of the delhi rent control act, 1958. this judgment of the supreme court has been followed and applied by us in another case, being (n. d. m. 0. v. little theatre group), g.w. 219 of 1980, decided on 9-4-1980. (3) the respondents have not fixed the annual letting.....
Judgment:

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) In this and the connected writ petitioni, the com- mon question of law which arises is to how the annual letting value of the property is to be determined for the purpose of arriving at the amount of house-tax to be paid under Section 3(l)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 I in the case of houses situated under the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and under Section 116 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act.

(2) The Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1980 (1) R.G.J. 468 (S.G.)== 17(1980) D.L.T. 88 (SC), has held that the annual letting value of the property is to be determined with reference to the standard rent of the property which can be fixed under Section 6 or Section 9, as the case may be, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed and applied by us in another case, being (N. D. M. 0. v. Little Theatre Group), G.W. 219 of 1980, decided on 9-4-1980.

(3) The respondents have not fixed the annual letting value by reference to Section 6 or Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The impugned assessments are, thereforee, quashed and the respondents are directed to fix the annual letting value and arrive at the amount of tax payable by the petitioners in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence and/or give particulars so as to enable the respondents to arrive at the figure of standard rent. In case the necessary particulars are not given, the respondents shall fix the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(4) It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the writ petitions are belated. On the contrary, the argument on behalf of the petitioners is that previously the correct position in law was not known and that it is only after the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that it has become known that house tax can be levied only with reference to the standard rent and not with reference to the actual rent received. This decision of the Supreme Court wes delivered on 22nd December, 1979, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. D. Cowasji and Co. v. State of Mysore, : 1978(2)ELT154(SC) . The cause of action arose when the mistake of law was discoverd namely, when the Supreme Court decided the aforesaid case. In this view of the matter there was no undue delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the writ petition.

(5) In some writ petitions ihe ground which has been taken on behalf of the respondents is that the agreed rent is the standard rent under Section 6(2)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This point will also be gone into and decided by the respondents after giving notice to the petitioners. The parties will be at liberty to raise such other pleas as may be open to them in law.

(6) The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //