MANU/SC/0742/1995

True Court CopyTM Gujarati

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5405 of 1995 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21538 of 1994) and Civil Appeal Nos. 5406, 5407-09, 5410-11 5412, 5413, 5414-17, 5418-23, 5424, 5425, 5426-31 of 1995 Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22693, 22695-97, 23286-87/94, 2193, 915, 1055-58, 152

Decided On: 09.05.1995

Appellants: Asstt. General Manager, Central Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the City of Ahmedabad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.V. Manohar

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted. Heard S/Sri G.L. Sanghi, Rohinton Nariman, V.R. Reddy and Andhyarujina for the appellants and S/Sri F.S. Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, B.K. Mehta for the respondents.

3. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in a batch of first appeals. Two questions arise for consideration, viz., (i) whether a tenant of a building is entitled to file and maintain an appeal against the order assessing the property tax under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as applicable in the State of Gujarat and (ii) whether proviso (aa) to sub-clause (ii) of Clause (1A) of Section 2 of the said Act is valid and effective. Clause (1A) defines the expression "Annual Letting Value". Proviso (aa) says that where in respect of any building or land or premises, standard rent is not fixed under Section 11 of the Bombay Rente, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1944 (Bombay Rent Act) "the annual rent received by the owner in respect of such building or land or premises shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be the annual rent for which such building or land or premises might reasonably be expected to let from year to year with reference to its use". The Gujarat High Court has held on the first question that an appeal can be preferred only by the owner of the building and not by any other person including the tenant. On the second question, it has recorded its opinion on the meaning and effect of proviso (aa).

Tenants rights to object to assessment and his right to file appeal:

3. The contention, of the learned counsel for the appellants-tenants is this: by virtue of the agreements entered into between the appellants and their respective landlords, the obligation to discharge the property, taxes has been placed exclusively upon the tenants. The landlord receives the rent exclusive of the property taxes which means that any increase/enhancement of property taxes affects the tenant and tenant alone and not the landlord. The tenants, therefore, have a direct stake in determination/assessment of property taxes. Even apart from the agreements between the parties, Section 10 of the Bombay Rent Act empowers the landlord to increase the rent correspondingly where the rates or cesses payable in respect of the said premises (which includes the property taxes) are enhanced. Inasmuch as the liability to pay the property taxes is cast upon the tenants both by virtue of the agreement between the parties and also by virtue of the Bombay Rent Act, the landlords are not taking any interest nor are they filing complaints or taking other ........