Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ganesh Das

Dulat and P.C. Pandit, JJ.—Ganesh Dass, respondent, is the owner of shops Nos. 11695 to 11791, situate in Sat Nagar Ward No. 16 Karol Bagh, Delhi. He was assessed to house-tax by the Delhi Municipal Committee for the years 1949 to 1951 on the basis of the annual value of this property, which they determined as Rs. 3000/-. According to him, the rent of these shops had been fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 122/- per mensem under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer-Marwara Rent Control Act, 1947. Consequently, their annual rental value came to Rs. 1,464/-. He, therefore, filed a suit for the refund of the excess tax paid by him for the year 1949. He also claimed an injunction restraining the defendant-Committee from realizing the tax for the years 1950 and 1951 on the basis of the annual rental value of Rs. 3,300/-.

The suit was resisted by the Committee, which pleaded that the annual rental value had been correctly fixed and in any case the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, which was barred under the provisions of section 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The trial Court found that though the assessment made by the Committee was not in accordance with law, but the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, by virtue of the provisions of section 86 of the Act. As a result, the suit was dismissed.

When the matter went in appeal before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, he came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred under the provisions of section 86 of the Act, as the assessment made by the Committee was contrary to law. The appeal was, consequently, accepted and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

Against this decision, the defendant filed an appeal in this Court, which was heard by Capoor J. The learned Judge held that the Committee could not increase the rental value of a house for the purposes of taxation beyond the standard rent. Consequently, the taxation by the Committee on the basis of the annual rental value assessed at a rate higher than the one fixed by the Rent Controller was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. It was further held that if the assessment was without jurisdiction, section 86 of the Act would be of no avail to the Committee. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. Against this, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the suit filed by the respondent was barred under the provisions of section 86 of the Act, because this section clearly provided that no objection could be taken to any valuation or assessment nor could the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned in any other manner or by any other authority than was provided in the Act. This section further provided that no refund of any tax could be claimed by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. Learned counsel argued that a complete procedure was prescribed in the Act with regard to the imposition of the tax, the filing of the objections and the appeal by the aggrieved party against the same. There was even a provision for making a reference to this Court u/s 84 of the Act. The Committee, according to the learned counsel, had fixed the annual rental value at Rs. 3,000/-, whereas the respondent was claiming that it should have been Rs, 1,464/-. The dispute, therefore, was only with regard to the amount of the tax and it could not be said that the authorities under the Act either lacked jurisdiction or exceeded the same in deciding this matter. At the utmost, it could be urged that their decision was wrong in law, but that did not mean that it was without jurisdiction and the civil Courts, consequently, could not entertain this suit.

It is undisputed that u/s 9 of the CPC the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, excepting those of which the cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. If a special jurisdiction has been conferred on a Tribunal in respect of a particular matter, it cannot exceed those powers. In other words, it has to function within the limits prescribed by the particular enactment. The moment it exceeds those powers, the consequent would be that that order would be in excess of the authority conferred on it by the statute and, thus, the Tribunal could not be said to be acting under the Act and would be abusing its powers. In such a situation, the aggrieved party can seek relief in a civil Court. If it is proved that the Committee was levying tax which was not permitted under the Act, the aggrieved party could not be debarred under the provisions of section 86 of the Act from seeking the protection of the civil Courts. The remedy of an appeal or a reference against taxation provided in section 84 is merely confined to those acts which are within the powers of the authorities under the Act and the bar mentioned in section 86 also applied to such an assessment.

According to section 3(1) (b) of the Act, the annual value in the case of any house or building means a gross annual rent at which such house or building may reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The expression "reasonably be expected to let" has been interpreted by this Court as the amount which a landlord can recover under the law, but not the sum which he may choose to receive from his tenant in violation of the law. Thus, the Rent Control Act does modify the definition of the ''annual value'' as given in the Punjab Municipal Act (see in this connection Civil Reference No. 16 of 1953-Oriental Government Security Life Insurance Company Limited v. The New Delhi Municipality, New Delhi Civil Reference No. 16 of 1953, decided by G. D. Khosla and Kapur JJ. on 9th March 1954). In addition to this, there are other rulings also of this Court taking a similar view. No contrary decision of this Court was brought to our notice on this point. In the present case, it has been found that the Rent Controller had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 122/- per mensem for these shops. This comes to Rs. 1,464/- per annum. The appellant had, consequently, no jurisdiction to fix the annual rental value at Rs. 3,000/-. No interference is, therefore, called for in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The result is that this appeal fail and is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, there will be no order as to costs in this Court.