Dr.Abdul Ghani Ansari vs State Of Mp & Ors.

Heard.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a Doctor and having hospital in the rented premises being Shop No.29/3, Ranipura, Indore since 1960. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 is the owner of the shop and he had some dispute with the respondent No.1 and 2 Municipal Corporation in respect of non payment of property tax and on account of the fact that the respondent No.3 had not paid the property tax the hospital of the petitioner was locked on 8/3/2018 in-lieu of the outstanding property tax.

This Court considering the circumstances of the case and taking note of the earlier order dated 28/1/2009 passed in WP No.3676/2008 vide order dated 16/9/2019 had directed the respondents to open the lock of the petitioners premises. By virtue of the said order the lock has been opened.

This Court in the matter of Saleem Mansoori and others Vs. Municipal Corporation and others 2009 3 MPLJ 519 has settled the position that the recovery of property tax can be made by attachment of rent due in respect of the property and not putting a lock over the property in occupation of the tenant. In that case, the action of the Corporation in putting a lock on the tenanted shop was held to be without authority and law and quashed. In the aforesaid matter, this court taking note of Sec.134 and 141 of the Municipal Corporation Act had held that:-

"6- A close perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that, it is within the power of the Municipal Corporation, to recovery the property tax charged and levied on the owner even from the occupier of said premises in the manner and to the extent as is provided in the Act. Whereas, section 134(6) stipulates that in case of property tax, by the attachment of rent due in respect of the property. A conjoint reading of section 141(2) and section 134(6) reveals that the recovery of property tax, if it is to be effected on an occupier who happens to be tenant which can only be by attachment rent due in respect of the said property. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has failed to show any provision which empowers the Municipal Corporation to effect recovery by putting a lock over the property in occupation of a tenant to effect recovery of property tax.

7- Having thus considered, this Court is of the opinion that the action taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation by putting a lock on shops in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant for the purpose of recovery of property tax is without any authority. The said action of respondents is hereby quashed. It will be open for the respondents to effect recovery of property tax, if they so intend, from the petitioner tenants, by attaching the rent due in respect of the said property."

Having regard to the detailed reasons which are assigned above, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondent Corporation in putting a lock in the premises of the petitioner tenant for recovery of property tax from the landlord respondent No.3 cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside. The respondents will be at liberty to act in accordance with the law and judgment which is quoted above.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

c.c as per rules.