LexDEWAN DAULAT RAI KAPOOR ETC. ETC. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, • ' L 607 DEWAN DAULAT RAI KAPOOR ETC. ETC. v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE & ANOTHER ETC. ETC. December 20, 1979 [P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR ANQ R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] Delhi Mu1dcipal Corporation Act 1957, Seclion 116 & Punjab Municipal Act 1911, Section 3(1)(b)-Assess1nent of buildinK for nu1nicipal tax-Annual value-Standard rent or contractual rent--Applicahility of rent control legis- lation. JVords & phrases--'Annual Valuei'-Reasonably-Meanin!J of. Section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 defines ·'annual value"' to mean, in the case of a-ny house or builrJing "the gross annual rent at which such house or: building. . . . may reasonably be expected to let from year to year" subject. to certain specified deductions. The same definition of "annual value" is to be found in section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 but with Only difference that there, is a, second proviso to section 116 \vhich is absent in section 3(1)(b). One appeal· related to a case where the building is situated within the juris- diction of the, New Delhi Municipal Committee and is liable to be assessed to house tex under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 while the other two related to cases where the building is situated within the limits of the Corpo- ration of Delhi and is assessable to house tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1917. The house tax under both statutes was levied with reference to the "annual value" of the building. The common question of law arising in the appeals related to the a-ssess- ment of_ annual value for levy of house tax where the building is governed by the provisions of Rent Control Legislation but where the standard rent bas not yet b~en fiXed. The argume,it of the Revenue was (i) that if it was not penal for the landlord to receive the contractual rent from the tenant, even if it be higher than the standard rent determinable under the provisions of the Act, it would not be incorrect to say that the landlord could reasonably expect to let the building at the contractual rent and the contractual rent therefore provided a correct measure for determination of the annual value of the building, and (ii) the period of limitation for making an application for fixation of the standard rent had expired long prior to the commencement of the assess- ment years and in each of the roses, the tenant was precluded by section 12 of the Rent Control Act from making an application for :fixation of the standard rent with the result that the landlord was lawfully entitled to con· tinue to receive ·the contrl\ctual rent from the tenant without any let or hinder- . ance. Allowing the appeals, HELD : I. The Court would have examined the validity of this argu- ment first on principle and then turned to the authorities, hut it proposed to reverse this order becau!e the decisions in the Life Insurance Corporation's A 8 c D E F G H ------·--------- A B c D E G H 608 SUPREME COUi<T REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. case and the Guntur Municipal Council's case (supra) completely covered the· present controversy and did not leave any scope for further argument. The decision in Padma Devi's case n1ay be said to be distinguishable on the ground that in the present cases, unlike Padnia Devi's case, the standard rent of the building was not fixed by the Controller and hence it could not be said that it was unlawful or penal for the landlord to recieve. anything more than the standard rent. But so far as the decision in Life Insurance Corporation's case is concerned, it is difficult to sec how its applicability could be disputed, be- cause there als0, as in the present case, the standard rent of the building was not fixed by the Controller and in the absence of the standard rent, it was open to the landlord to receive rent in excess of the standard rent determin- nble under the Act. The only distinction was that under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, which came up for consideration in the Life 'Insurance Corporation's case, the standard rent was statutorily determinable on the application of a mathematical formula without any discretion being left in the Controller, \\·hiJe under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the standard rent was not a certain and definite figure to be arrived at mathematically by application of the formula laid down in section 6 but it was left to the Controller under section 9 s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.