ASSTT. GEN. MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ETC. versus COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 09-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ASSTT. GEN. MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ETC. 
A 
v. 
-· 
COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 
AHMEDABAD ETC. ETC. 
MAY 9, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949-Ss. 406 and 407 
r/w Taxation Ru/es-Rules 15 (1) and (2}-Whether tenant of a building en-
titled to file complaint and appeal against property tax assessment c 
order-Held, yes; would not be just or equitable to deny such right-Bombay 
Rents,Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act 194-f-S.IO. 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1941)-/'roviso (aa) to 
S.2(1A) (ii}-Whether annual rent for determining annual letting value is 
D 
actual rent or standard rent under the Bombay Rent Act-Held; actual rent 
received is the annual rent. 
S.406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 
('Act') provides for appeals against fixation of rateable value or taxes to 
be filed within fifteen days after accrual of the cause of complaint. Accord-
E 
ing to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of S.407, the cause of complaint arises when 
the complaint against the assessment, enhancement or determination of 
property tax is disposed of by the Commissioner. Rule 15(1) of the 
Taxation Rules in Schedule A to the Act provides for complaints against 
assessment of rateble value. Rule 15(2) states that when the premises is 
entered in the assessment book for the first time or its rateable value is F 
increased, the Commissioner will give a special written notice to either the 
owner or occupier of the premises informing him that any complaint 
~ 
thereagainst will be received within fifteen days from service of the notice. 
The appellants who were tenants of various buildings covered by the G 
Act unsuccessfully contended before the Gujarat High Court that since the 
. 
' 
landlord invariably passed on to them burden of increased property taxes 
under s.10 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
Act, 1944 ('Bombay Rent Act'), they had a direct stake in the determination 
and assessment of property tax and were accordingly entitled to file 
complaints and appeals thereagainst • 
H 
... 
63 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP: 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The second contention of the appellants was that even where the 
B 
standard rent under the Bombay Rent Act was not fixed for the premises, 
the annual rent for which the building may be expected to be left, for the 
purpose of determining the annual letting value, was the standard rent 
alone and not the actual rent. 
Allowing the appeals in part, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under the scheme of the Bombay Provincial Municipal 
Corporations Act read with S.10 of the Bombay Rent Act, the tenant does 
possess the requisite locus standi to file a complaint pursuant to public 
C 
notice issued under Rule 15(1) or pursuant to special written notice issue 
under Rule 15(2) as well as the right to file an appeal under S.406. The 
tenant is a directly affected party and it would not be just or equitable to 
deny him such a right unless the statute says so specifically. [73-E, 74-H] 
1.2. The tenant or tenants filing the appeal would not only have to 
D deposit the disputed tax proportionate to the premises occupied by them 
but the disputed tax with respect to the whole of the premises. [75-F] 
2. In view of the .non-obstante clause contained in proviso (aa), it 
must be held that for the purpose of the Municipal Corporations Act, the 
actual rent received is the annual rent for the purposes of determining the 
E annual letting value, where the standard rent is not fixed under s.11 of the 
Bombay Rent Act and such actual rent received constitutes the basis for 
determining the annual letting value, rateable value and property taxes. Io 
such cases, actual rent received should be deemed to be the reasonable 
rent. [81-B, 87-F) 
F 
Municipal Corporation, Indore & Ors. v. Smt. Ratna Prabha & Ors., 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 1017 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Municipal Corpora-
tion & Ors., (1995) 3 J.T. 626, followed. 
Srikant Jituri & Ors v. Corporation of the City of Belgaum, (1994) 6 J.T. 
G 496, referred to. 
Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi, [1962) 3 SCR 49; Cor-
poration of Calcutta v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, [1971) 1 SCR 
248; Gzmtur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association 
Etc., [1971] 2 SCR 423; Dewan Dault Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal 
H Committee, [1980] 2 SCR 607 and Morvi Municipality v. State of Gujarat,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.