SHAMBHU NATH PALIT versus CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA AND ANR.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 24-01-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
606 
SHAMBHU NATH PALIT 
v. 
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA AND ANR. 
January 24. 1978 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Calcutta J\funicipal Act, 1951, S. 202~Whether the pro\·isions of 
Thika 
Tenancy Act a bar to the recovery fro111 tile tenant by a landlord, of the rates 
levied and collected by the Corporation as an owner 11/s 202 of the Municipal 
Act. 
The petitioners challenged the levy and collection of the municipal tax from 
them as landlords in respect of the huts constructed and 
occupied 
by their 
tenants on the lands leased to the latter. The Calcutta High Court, taking the 
view that S. 202 of the· Municipal Act, 1951 provided for collection 
by 
the 
owner of the land of so much of the rate a_s is attributable to the hut which 
belongs not to the owner but to the tenant, directed, that in regard to each 
bit of land and hut thereon, there will be particularisation of the assessment 
separately on the consolidated valuation. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. S. 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 is more or less a 
self-contained code with the result that what is leviable under that provision 
cannot be prejudiced by the existence of any other provision. 
2. "fhe ·Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of the petitioner in 
recovering what is permissible u/s 202 of the Municipal Act. 
Thika Tenancy 
Act deals with rents while s. 202 deals with rates. 
The special provision must 
prevail so far as the rates are concerned. 
3. A special provision dealing with owners of bastis cannot be challenged 
as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, when their posi-
tion is protected by s. 202 of the Municipal Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 5097 of 1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24-9-75 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Appeal No. 154 of 1971. 
N. R. Chatterjee and Am/an Ghose for the Petitioner. 
G 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
H 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have heard counsel Mr. Chatterjee on two 
grievances of his clinet. 
According to him, the land belongs to the 
petitioner, the huts belong to his tenants, but the municipal assessment 
is based upon valuation of the land and the huts together. This grie-
vance is taken care of in two ways. 
The High Court had directed 
that in regard to each bit of land and hut thereon, there will be particu-
larisation of the assessment separately. on the consolidated valuation. 
Secondly, there is also provision in s. 202 of the Calcutta Municipal 
' 
( 
• 
( 
) 
... 
} 
) 
s. N. P.lLIT v. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA (Krishna Iyer, !.) 60 T 
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for collection by the 
A 
owner of the land of so such of the rate as is attributable to the hut 
which belongsjlot to the owner but to the tenant, if we may pllt it lOQSe!y 
that way. 
The details have been spelt out in s. 202 of the Act. 
We 
consider s. 202 as more or jess a self-contained code with the result 
that what is leviable under that provision cannot be prejudiced by the 
existence of any other provision. 
Counsel's second grievence is that the provisions of 
the Thika 
Tenancy Act stand in the way of the petitioner collecting from his 
tenant any amount in excess of the rent fixed under the Act. 
This 
grievance also has no substance because the Thika Tenancy Act deals 
B 
with rents wh;le s. 202 deals with rates. 
The special provision must 
prevail so far as the rates are concerned and the petitioner is not pre-
vented from collecting sums due under s. 202 in the sha2e of rates. 
c 
The Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of thy petitioner in 
recovering what is permissible under s. 202 of the Act. 
.Nor are we able to appreciate counsel's contention that Art 
14 
of the Constitution is violated. Bastis-horrid hovels, which blot the 
human-scape of India, still survive in our socialistic pattern-stand as a 
separate category although as an ugly but inescapable social reality. 
D 
It is true that the most unfortunate section of the society in Calcutta 
City dwell in these bastis except those who, unable to afford the luxury 
even of these bastis, have to seek she,Jter on the pavements. 
So far 
as Art. 14 is concerned, the bastis and the dwellers of bastis stand in a 
tearfully separate class by themselves and a special provision dealing 
with owners of bastis cannot be challenged as discriminatory. If ever 
there were any discrimination 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.