LexSTATE TRADING CORPN. INDIA LTD. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H (2016) 1 S.CR. 492 STATE TRADING CORPN. INDIA LTD. v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (Civil Appeal No. 2772 of2009) FEBRUARY 03, 2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1994 - s. 63 - Determination of rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property tax -- Held: The only basis for fixation of rateable value is the annual rent at which the land or building might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. subject to the deductions provided under the Act -· Jn cases of self-occupied building the annual rent would be fixed on the basis of what the landlord might expect to get from hypothetical tenant - Jn cases of sub-let building with the permission of the Govemment, the rateable value has to be fixed only on the basis of 75% of the rent received from the sub- lessee. Ne11• Delhi Municipal Committee Bye-laws - Bye-law 12 - Reliance on - For calculation of annual rent for the purpose of s.63 of NDMC Act - Permissibility - Held: Since !here is provision and procedure u!s. 63 of NDA1C Act for calculating !he ann11al rent, Bye-laws have not to be relied 11po11 for tho! pw11ose · New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1994 - s.63. Allowing the ;ippeal, the Court HELD: 1. The only basis for fixation of rateable value is the annual rent :it which the land or building might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, subject to the deductions provided under the New Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (NDMC Act). The High Court's decision that since there was already a payment of rent by the sub-lessee, there need not be any other exercise for assessment of the reasonable rent, was based on bye-law 12 of the New Delhi Municipal Committee Byelaws framed under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The 1911 Act has been repealed and as per Section 416(2) of the NDMC Act what 492 STATE TRADING CORPN. INDIA LTD. v. NEW DELHI 493 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL is saved is only the provisions under the bye-laws which are not otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of the NDMC Act. Since there is a provision and procedure under Section 63 the NDMC Act for calculating the annual rent, one need not refer at all to the bye-laws since they are apparently inconsistent with the p,rovisions of the NDMC Act. It is impermissible to refer to the bye-laws framed under the Punjab Act in view of specific provisions made under the NDMC Act providing for the levy, assessment and collection of property tax. (Paras 5, 6 and 7) [495-F-G; 496-B-D) 2. Where the building is self-occupied and where there is no sub-lease, the annual rent will have to be fixed on the basis what the landlord might reasonably expect to get from a hypothetical tenant. Such fixation has to be made only as per the NDMC Act. (Para 11] (498-B-C] 3. So far as the building sub-let with the permission of Government is concerned, having regard to the agreement with the Government of India for payment of 25% of the gross rent fetched from the sub-lessee, the 25% that is being paid to the Government by the lessee out of the rent collected from the sub- lessee is inflated to include the extra 25% since the rent actually available to the lessee is only 75% of the amount actually paid by the sub-lessee to the lessee. Therefore,the rateable value under section 63 of the NDMC Act, in the case of the appellants coming under the second category has to be fixed on the basis of 75% of the amount received from the sub-lessee by the appellants. (Para 10) (497-F-H] Dewan Dau/at Rai Kapoor and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 685; Ind;a Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 388:1980 (2) SCR 607 - relied on. Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran (HUF) Vs. Union of India & Ors. 95 DLT 508 (2002) (DB) - referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 95 DLT 508(2002) (DB) referred to. Para3 A B c D E F G H 494 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980) i sec 685 1980 (2) SCR 607 relied on. relied on. [2016] I S.C.R. Para 9, 10 Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2772 of2009 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2005 and 14.02.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 413 of 2003 and Review Petition No. RP 73 of2006 WITH C C. A. NO. 787 OF 2016 C. A. NOS. 2773, 2774, 2775, 2777, 2778, 2779, 2780, 278! OF 2009 P. P. Malhotra, V. Giri, R. P. Shanna, Yasir Rauf, Ind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.