LexBASAPPA RUDRAPPA BETGERI & ORS. versus HUBLI DHARWAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BASAPPA RUDRAPPA BETGERI & ORS. v. BUBLI DHARWAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION April 27, 1971 [J. M. SHBLAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHAR.GAVA, JJ.] Bombay Municipal Boroughs A.ct, 1925, ss. 73, 85-Levy of house tax by municipality on lessees of buildings owned by municipality-Validity of levy. The respondent Corporation was originally constituted as a Borough under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 having been converted into a Corporation in 1962. The Borough owned several buildings in the area of its jurisdiction and some of these were given on lease to the ap-- pellants in 1953. The leases were renewed in 1955. Neither in the original leases nor in the fresh leases was there any mention of the liability of tho tenants to pay the house· tax. Subsequent to the execution of the fresh leases hills were received from the responden~ by the appellants calling upon them to pay the house tax imposed in respect of the buildings belong- ing to the respondent which were on lease with the appellants. The appel- lants filed a suit challenging the legality of the imposition of this house tax. The main ground taken was that the Municipality could not impose a house tax on buildings owned by itself. The trial court held that the respondent was not competent to levy from the tenants any sum in excess of the agreed rents and that in the circumstances of this case notice under s. 206-A of the Act was not necessary. The Additional District Judge in appeal agreed that the levy was not valid but held the suit not to be maintainable for· want of a notice under s. 206-A. The High Court in second appeal held that the levy was valid and that a notice under s. 206·A was necessary. In appeal by special leave to this Court, HELD: There is nothing in the scheme of the Act to indicate that buildings belonging to the municipality itself cannot be subjected to tho house-tax which can be imposed under s. 73 of the Act. The language of s. 85 specifically envisages imposition of such a tax on buildings belong- ing to tho municipality. It clearly lays down that such a tax shall be loviable primarily from the actual occupier of tho property oli -which the tax is assessed, even if he holds it on a lease from tho municipality. The fixation of such respon&ibility primarily on the occupier holding a building on lease from the municipality could only be laid down on the basis that tho buildings owned by tho municipality can be subjected to the tax. Once the tax is imposed on such a buildins it would be payable by the occupier if he holds it as a lessee of tho municipality, There is nothing anomalous in such taxation because tho tax is not levied by the municipality on itself but OL the lessee. [On tho above view the court did not find it necessary to decide whetbtr before tho filing of tho suit by the appellants a notice undeJ ._ 206-A of the Act was necessary.] Crvn. APPBLLATE JUKJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 1966 .. Appea.I by ~_leave frOIJI !he iudPlent and order dated February 23, 1966 of lhe Mysore High Court in Second Appeal No. 888 of 1961. • c D E G H 536 SUPl\EME COURT REPOJ.TS (197!) SUPP. S.C.R. A S. V. Gupte, Naunit Lal S. S. Khanduja and Swar1111jit Sodhi for the appellants. B c D E 11 G H K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargan, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit challenging the validity of imposition of house-tax and notices issued for realisation of that tax from the appellants. The res- pondent, the Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corpor&tion. was originally constituted as a Borough under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). At the relevant time, when the disputes leading to the suit arose, it was still a Borough, but it became a Corporation subsequently in the year 1962. The Borough owned several buildings in Dharwar. Some of these buildings were given on leases, to the appellants. These leases were executed in favour of the appellants by the Borough some time in March and April, 1953. Thereafter, by a General Committee Resolution No. 36 dated 29th June, 1953, the Borough decided to recover house-tax and other municipal taxes from the private individuals who were telllllnts of the municipal buildings leased out to them. In pursuance of this Resolution, a notice was issued by the President of the Borough that all the citizens in oc- cupation of the buildings owne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.