Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4104 of 1998
PETITIONER:
LT. COL. PR. CHAUDHARY (RETD.) ETC.
RESPONDENT:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/04/2000
BENCH:
D.P WADHWA & N. SANTOSH HEGDE
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 (3) SCR 607
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. WADHWA, J. Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 1998 is aggrieved by
judgment dated July 7, 1997 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court
dismissing his writ petition wherein he had sought setting aside the order
of assessment dated March 12, 1991 assessing the rateable value of his
property for the purpose of property tax under Section 116 of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the "Act"). The property of the
I. 116. Determination of rateable value of lands and buildings
assessable to property taxes. (1) The rateable value of any land or
building assessable to property taxes shall be the annual rent at which
such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year
less -
(a) a sum equal to ten per cent of the said annual rent which shall be in
lieu of all allowances for costs of repairs and insurance, and other
expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land or building in a state to
command that rent, and
(b) the water tax or the scavenging tax or both, if the rent is inclusive
of either or both of the said taxes :
Provided that if the rent is inclusive of charges for water supplied by
measurement, then, lor the purpose of this section the rent shall be
treated as inclusive of water tax on rateable value and the deduction of
the water tax shall be made as provided therein :
Provided further that in respect of any land or building the standard rent
of which has been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952
(38 of 1952), the rateable value thereof shall not exceed that annual
amount of the standard rent so fixed. appellant comprised of his house
constructed on a plot of land bearing No. 11-1787 Chitranjan Park, New
Delhi, measuring 311 Sq. yards. The writ petition was dismissed by the High
Court relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi
v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided by the same Division Bench on May
29, 1997. Civil Appeal No. 4105 of 1998 is against that judgment of the
High Court. It would, therefore, be appropriate to refer to the facts in
the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi.
The appellant Ravish Chander Rastogi is the owner of the property bearing
No. 55, Anand Lok, New Delhi. He was served with a notice dated March 20,
1986 under Section 126 of the Act proposing to enhance rateable value for
the purpose of property tax from existing Rs. 1280 to Rs. 1,79,000 with
effect from April 1, 1985. The reason for increase in the proposed rateable
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
value was that the appellant had made new construction. Appellant filed his
objections to the proposed rateable value. The assessing officer proceeded
to assess the rateable value on the basis that the property was in the
self-occupation of the appellant and rateable value, therefore, had to be
determined under Section 6(1)2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for
short the ’Rent Act’). For this two components are necessary: (1) market
value of the land on the date of commencement of construction and (2)
reasonable cost of construction. The assessing officer arrived at the
market value of the plot,
[Explanation. - The expression "water tax" and "scavenging tax" shall mean
such taxes of that nature as may be levied by an appropriate authority]
(inserted by Act No. 67 of 1993 - w.e.f. 1.10.1993)
(2) The rateable value of any land which is not built upon but is capable
of being built upon and of any land on which a building is in process of
erection shall he fixed at five per cent of the estimated capital value of
such land.
(3) All plant and machinery contained or situate in or upon any land or
building and belonging to any of the classes specified from time to time by
public notice by the Commissioner with the approval of the Standing
Committee, shall be deemed to form part of such land or building for the
purpose of determining the rateable value thereof under sub-section (1) but
save as aforesaid no account shall be taken of the value of any plant or
machinery contained or situated in or upon any such land or building.
2. Section 6(1) Subject to provisions of sub-section (2) ’standard rent’ in
relation to any premises means -
(A) in the case of residential premises -
(2) where such premises have been let out at any time on or after the 2nd
day of June. 1944. -
(b) in any other case, the rent calculated on the basis of seven and a-half
per cent, per annum of the aggregate amount of the reasonable cost of
construction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on
the date of the commencement of the construction.
Provided that where the rent so calculated exceeds twelve hundred rupees
per annum, this clause shall have effect as if for the words "seven and a-
half per cent", the words "eight and one-fourth per cent" had been
substituted;
(B) ..which measured 812 sq. yards at Rs. 6,00,000 as on the date when
building plans were sanctioned. He then estimated the reasonable cost of
construction at Rs. 12,98,000. Keeping in view the provisions of the Rent
Act he arrived at the aggregate of market value of the land and the cost of
construction at Rs 18,98,000. Standard rent of the property at the rate of
8.25% was thus Rs. 1,56,585. After 10% rebate for repairs, rateable value
was arrived at Rs. 1.40.930. The effective date of fixation of rateable
value was taken as March 17. 1986 when the appellant applied for the
occupancy certificate of the premises. Objections of the appellant that the
principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal
Corporation, Delhi and Others3 be taken into consideration while fixing the
rateable value, were not consid-ered relevant as it was observed that the
observations of this Court were made in the context of the applicability of
Section 9(4)4 of the Rent Act and that provisions of Section 9(4) would be
applicable only where it was not possible to determine the standard rent of
the premises on the principles set froth in Section 6 of the Rent Act. From
the assessment order the appellant filed an appeal before the District
Judge under Section 169 of the Act, which came for decision before Mr. P.K.
Dham, Additional District Judge, Delhi. Learned Additional District Judge
noticed three houses in the neighbourhood of the appellant where rateable
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
value of the property was fixed at Rs. 12,660 (house No. 52), Rs. 21,660
(house No. 15) and Rs. 40,800 (house No. 6). According to learned
Additional District Judge principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir
Smell’s case were fully applicable, which were ignored by the assessing
officer. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order and remanded the
matter buck to the assessing authority to decide the case afresh in
accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellant to be heard.
Now, it was the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which felt
aggrieved and sought to challenge the order of the learned Additional
District Judge by filing a writ petition in the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution. Submission of the appellant that principles laid
by this Court in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case were applicable did not find
favour with the High Court when it observed:
[1985] 2 SCR 439 9. Controller to fix standard rent, etc. - (1) to (3) ....
(4) Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard
rent of any premises on the principles set forth under Section 6. the
Controller may fix such rent as would be reasonable having regard to the
situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities
provided therein and where there are similar or nearly similar premises in
the locality having regard also to the standard rent payable in respect of
such premises.
(5) to (7)....
"It appears that in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case there are certain observa-tions
made which appear to lend support to the contention raised on behalf of the
assessee that the figure of standard rent having been arrived at has to be
further scaled down. These observations made in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case
display only an anxiety on the part of their Lordships to see that as far
as practicable the properties situated in one locality are assessed by
uniform standard so as to avoid the criticism of invidious discrimination.
The observations have to be read in the light of the statutory provisions.
The judgment in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case cannot be read as laying down
something which is not contemplated by the law itself, when the field is
entirely covered by the statutory law."
The argument of the appellant was that after having arrived at the figure
of standard rent the assessing authority should have treated that to be the
upper limit and thereafter he should have proceeded to apply the principle
of parity. This principle meant that the assessing authority must proceed
to find out the standard rent of similarly situated properties in the
locality whose construction might be older than that of the property of the
appellant and after having done this exercise the assessing authority
should reduce the standard rent of the premises in question so as to bring
it at par with the standard rent of other older premises in the locality.
It would be only on that basis there would be equality and parity in the
assessment of rateable value of the property tax as amongst all the
properties situated in one locality which would be more or less same. This
submission was also negatived by the High Court by making the following
observations :
"For several reasons, the submission of the learned counsel for the
assessee does not appeal to us. The learned counsel for the MCD has rightly
pointed out that firstly there is no warrant in law to support the
submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. Secondly, if the
proposition canvassed by the assessee was to be accepted, it would be
expecting the assessing authority to perform an exercise nearing
impossibility. Rarely it would be possible to expect two premises having
similar nature of construction and accommodation. The as-sessing authority
is not possessed of any machinery under the law which would enable it to
collect and record such evidence. There is no adversary system of deciding
assessment matters before the assessing authority. There is no independent
agency available to assessing authority which would go out searching and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
collecting evidence and then bring on the record of the assessing authority
such material as would enable the principle of parity canvassed by the
learned counsel for the assessee being applied. If the assessing authority
was itself to undertake that exercise, it would be busy collecting evidence
in the field left with hardly any time to sit in the office and finalise
the assessments. The time and energy which the assessing authority would be
required to spend in finalising individual assessments of the properties
would be so much that the imposition of such a tax would be counter
productive and may persuade the Municipal Corporation to drop the tax
itself instead of undertaking extremely onerous task of assessing and
realising the tax. There is yet another flaw inherent. For the purpose of
assessing one house property, the assessing authority must conduct survey
of the entire locality to find out the property least valued and then scale
down the value of property under assessment. It was also submitted by the
learned counsel for the MCD that by a series of decisions of the Supreme
Court it is well settled that for the purpose of finding out reasonable
rent, the assessing authority has to keep in view the principles of
standard rent as deducible form the provisions of Rent Control Law which
permits cost of construction being adopted as basis for calculating the
rateable value in the case of self-occupied properties. It is fair and
reasonable if the assessing authority works out the cost of land by
reference to the date of commencement of construction and the reasonable
amount spent in construction. That exercise is by itself time consuming
exercise, yet once it is done the facts found would be relatable to the
facts as actually exist. Where is then the occasion for going a step ahead
and then finding out the value of land and cost of construction of
comparable properties of the locality so as to scale down the rateable
value and standard rent determined of the properties under assessment? The
Delhi Rent Control Act nowhere contemplates such an exercise being
undertaken for the purpose of finding out standard rent so as to ascertain
the reasonable letting value."
High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of learned
Additional District Judge and restored that of the assessing authority.
On grant of leave to appeal by the appellant these matters have come before
us. We are concerned in these appeals as the law existed prior to the
amendment of the Rent Act in 1988. By the Act 57 of 1988 the Rent Act was
not to apply to certain premises as provided in Section 35 of the Rent Act.
In Dr. Balbir Singh’s case this Court was concerned with the determi-nation
of rateable value in respect of properties situated in Delhi and governed
by the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The Court considered four different categories
of properties, namely (1) where the properties are self-occupied, that is,
occupied by the owners; (2) where the properties are partly self-occupied
and partly tenanted; (3) where the land on which the property is
constructed is lease hold land with a restriction that the lease hold
interest shall not be transferable without the approval of the lessor and
(4) where the property has been constructed in stages. Under provisions of
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as well as Punjab Municipal Act, the
criteria for determining rateable value of building is the annual rent at
which such building reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The
word ’reasonably’ in the definition is very important. What the owner might
reasonably expect to get form a hypothetical tenant, if the building were
let from year to year, affords the statutory yardstick for determining the
rateable value. Now what is reasonable is a question of fact and it depends
on the facts and circumstances of a given situation. The Court considered
various provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Punjab
Municipal Act as well as that of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Delhi
Rent Control Act was amended in 1988 when certain properties were taken out
of the purview of that Act. The four categories have been considered at
pages 461, 466, 468 and 473 of the Report. The statement of law laid by
this Court after considering various statutory provisions made in respect
of the first category we quote :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
3. Act not to apply to certain premises. - Nothing in this Act shall apply:
(a) to any premises belonging to the Government;
(b) to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from
the Government in respect of the premises taken on lease or requisitioned
by the Government:
Provided that where any premises belonging to Government have been or are
lawfully let by any person by virtue of an agreement with the Government or
otherwise, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court
or other authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply to such tenancy.
(c) to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent
exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; or
(d) to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the
Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988. for a period of ten years
from the date of completion of such construction. "The retable value of
the premises, whether residential or non-residential cannot exceed the
standard rent, but, as already pointed out above, it may in a given case be
less than the standard rent. The annual rent which the owner of the
premises may reasonably expect to get if the premises are let out would
depend on the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and
the amenities provided therein and all these and other relevant factors
would have to be evaluated in determining the rateable value, keeping in
mind the upper limit fixed by the standard rent. If this basic principle is
borne in mind, it would avoid wide disparity between the rateable value of
similar premises situate in the same locality, were some premises are old
premises constructed many years ago when the land prices were not high and
the cost of construction had not escalated and others are recently
constructed premises when the prices of the land have gone up almost 40 to
50 times and the cost of construction has gone up almost 3 to 5 times in
the last 20 years. The standard rent of the former category of premises on
the principles set out in sub-section (l)(A)(2)(b) or (l)(B)(2)(b) of
Section 6 would be comparatively low, while in case of latter category of
premises, the standard rent determinable on these principles would be
unduly high. If the standard rent were to the measure of rateable value,
there would be huge disparity between the rateable value of old premises
and recently constructed premises, though they may be similar and situate
in the same or adjoining locality. That would be wholly illogical and
irrational. Therefore, what is required to be considered for determining
rateable value in case of recently constructed premises is as to what is
the rent which the owner might reasonably expect to get if the premises are
let out and that is bound to be influenced by the rent which is obtainable
for similar premises constructed earlier and situate in the same or
adjoining locality and which would necessarily be limited by the standard
rent of such premises. The position in regard to the deter-mination of
rateable value of self-occupied residential and non-residential premises
may thus be stated as follows : The standard rent determinable on the
principles set out in sub-section (2)(a) or (2)(b) or (l)(A)(2)(b) or (l)
(B)(2)(b) of Section 6, as may be applicable, would fix the upper limit of
the rateable value of the premises and within such upper such upper limit,
the assessing authorities would have to determine as to what is the rent
which the owner may reasonably expect to get if the premises are let to a
hypothetical tenant and for the purpose of such determination, the
assessing authorities would have to evaluate factors such as size,
situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities therein
provided. The assessing authorities would also have to take into account
the rent which the owner of similar premises constructed earlier and
situate in the same or adjoining locality, might reasonably expect to
receive from a hypothetical tenant and which would necessarily be within
the upper limit of the standard rent of such premises, so that there is no
vide disparity between the rate of rent per square fool or square yard
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
which the owner might reasonably expect to get in case of the two premises.
Some disparity is bound to be there on account of the size, situation,
locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein.
Bigger size beyond a certain optimum would depress the rate of rent and so
also would less favourable situation or locality or lower quality of
construction or unsatisfactory condition of the premises or absence of
necessary amenities and similar other factors. But after taking into
account these varying factors the disparity should not be
disproportionately large."
We find ourselves unable to subscribe to the reasoning of the High Court
and the views expressed by it. Law as interpreted by this Court cannot be
brushed aside by saying to the effect that it is not in conformity with the
statutory provisions. Law laid by this Court is explicit and admits of no
doubt. For the purpose of arriving at the rateable value the basic
principle is the annual rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably
expect to get if the premises were let out to a hypothetical tenant. It
would depend on the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises
and the ameni-ties provided therein. All these and other relevant factors
would have to be followed in determining the rateable value. That, however,
cannot be in excess of the standard rent which would be the upper limit.
But then con-sidering the run away prices of land and building materials,
if the standard rent were to be the measure of rateable value, there would
be a huge disparity between rateable value of old premises and those
recently constructed though they may be similar and situated in the same or
even adjoining locality. Considering the same and similar services which
are provided by the local authority if there is vast disparity between the
rateable value of the old premises and the new premises that would be
wholly illogical and irrational. To avoid such a situation, Dr. Balbir
Singh’s case laid the principles which have to be followed in arriving at
the rateable value of the newly constructed premises. Of course, rateable
value cannot be the same but then at the same lime a wide disparity would
certainly be irrational, unreasonable and unfair which situation could be
avoided by following the principles laid by this Court, otherwise the
rateable value recording wide disparity would be struck down. There cannot
be any ambiguity as to the principles laid by this Court in arriving at the
rateable value.
We also find that the reasoning of the High Court is flawed that the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi has no machinery if required to follow the
principles laid by this Court. No two premises can be similar, in all
revenue matters, there is no adversary system. Assessment records of the
rateable value of the premises in the locality are certainly available in
the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It has a field stall" on
the reports of which notices for enllancement of the rateable value are
issued. Assessing authority hears the objections to the fixation of
rateable value and acts in quasi-judicial capacity. Is orders are
appealable. It cannot act in arbitration fashion ignoring principles of law
laid by the Court. It cannot fall back on the spacious plea that it has no
means to act on the principles of law laid by this Court. Even notice for
enllancement of rateable value has to be based on reasons which must exist
on record and the owner is entitled to be apprised of those reasons. High
Court lent its support to the plea of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
which is contrary to the principles laid by this Court.
The appeals are allowed with costs. Judgments of the High Court in both the
appeals are set aside. Matter will go back to the Assessing Officer of the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi to arrive at the rateable value in
accordance with law keeping in view the principles laid by this Court in
the case of Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and
Others*.