1. This revision petition under Section 392 of the M.P Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the appellate order dated 18-2-1987 passed by the VIIth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 131 of 1986.
2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these. The respondent owns and posesses immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Indore (for short ‘the Corporation’). Notice dated Page: 35813-9-1985 under Section 146 of the Act was served on the respondent. Objections to the same along with grounds were delivered at the Municipal office as required under Section 147 of the Act and the Special Assessment Officer, by his order dated 28-6-1986 decided the objections and instead of Rs. 6,70,424.40 p. as stated in the notice the tax was reduced to Rs. 5,08,208.76 p. and made payable from 1-4-1985.
3. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid the present respondent preferred an appeal as provided under Section 149 of the Act. By the impugned order passed in appeal, the case has been remanded on the ground that the enhancement in the assessment has not been done after determining the standard rent and also on the ground that property tax cannot be levied with retrospective effect.
4. The contention of the Corporation in this Court is that the notice under Section 146 of the Act was proper and the impugned order remanding the case is unwarranted.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that determination of standard rent constitutes a pre-condition for enhancement and the impugned order is proper.
6. The point for determination is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
7. In the decision in J.C Mills Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, 1985 M.P.L.J 380, it has been held that unless there is a legal and proper notice to the occupier as required by section 146, jurisdiction thereunder regarding enhancement of valuation of property and imposition of property tax on that basis cannot be invoked. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision in J.C Mills' case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is urged that in that case four alternative grounds for increase were printed but the irrelevant ones were not scored out. Such is not the situation in the instant case. The contention of the respondent's learned counsel is that comparable units have not been mentioned therein and to that extent the notice is defective. He further urges that in the revision petition the direction of the appellate Court that enhancement in the assessment should he on the basis of standard rent has not been challenged and the Corporation has, therefore, to proceed in accordance with that direction by the appellate Court.
8. For the purposes of assessing land or building to property tax the annual value of land or building has to be ascertained as required under Section 138 of the Act.
9. When the Corporation intends to increase the valuation of any property for the purposes of property tax it has to issue notice as required under Section 146 of the Act. As to the requirement of the notice the decision in Badalchand's case, (1987) (1) MPWN 194 is pertinent.
10. In the decision in Ratna Prabha's case, (1976) 4 SCC 622 : AIR 1977 SC 308 it has been held that where the building has never been let out, the question of fixing its standard rent does not arise and reasonable rent may as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act be fixed without regard to the provisions of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
11. In the decision in Devon Daulat Rai Kapoor's case, (1980) 1 SCC 685 : AIR 1980 SC 541 the correctness of the decision rendered in Ratna Prabha's case (supra) has been Page: 359doubted and it has been held that where the building is governed by Rent Control legislation, the annual value cannot exceed the standard rent and that the fact that the lendlord is actually receiving higher rent is immaterial. The decision in Devon Daulat Rai Kapoor's case (supra) has been followed in the decision in Balbir Singh v. M.C.D, (1985) 1 SCC 167 : AIR 1985 SC 339 : 1986 MPRCJ 25. Therein it has been pointed out that rateable value of building whether tenanted or self-occupied is limited by the measure of standard rent arrived at by the Assessing Authority by applying the principles laid down in the Rent Act and cannot exceed the figure of the standard rent so arrived by the Assessing Authority. The standard rent determinable on the principles set out in the Rent Act is the upper limit of the rent which the landlord may be expected to receive from a hypothetical tenant, but it may, in a given case, be less than the standard rent having regard to various attendant cricumstances and considerations.
12. In the Single Bench decision in Laxmikant's case, Civil Rev. No. 328/86, decided by Indore Bench on 10-4-1987 the view taken in Ratna Prabha's case (supra) has been followed. However, in the decision in Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Shailendra Kumar, 1986 MPRCJ Note 110 page 176 it has been pointed out that the Supreme Court after examining the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Acts of other States, has been consistently laying down that irrespective of rent received by the owner from the tenant, the assessing authority has to arrive at its own figure of standard rent by applying the principles laid down in Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi, AIR 1962 SC 151, Devon Daulat Rai Kapoor etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980) 1 SCC 685 : AIR 1980 SC 541 and Dr. Balbirsingh v. M.C.D, (1985) 1 SCC 167 : AIR 1985 SC 339 : 1986 MPRCJ 25.
13. On a careful consideration I am of the view that the direction in the appellate order regarding determining standard rent for enhancement of property tax is proper.
14. In the impugned order it has also been held that the imposition of tax with retrospective effect is invalid. In the decision in Indore Nagar Palika Nigam v. Rama Kant, 1982 MPWN 133 it has been held that the Municipal Commissioner has power in proceedings for assessment initiated on a notice under Section 146 of the Act to assess tax with effect from the commencement of the financial year of the issuance of the notice and not for any period prior to it. In the decision in Hubli Municipality v. Subbarao, AIR 1976 SC 398 with reference to the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act it has been observed as under:—
“The Scheme of sections 78 to 81 is identical with that of Section 82 and in both cases what is contemplated first is a proposal to which objections are invited and after the objections are investigated and disposed of, the assessment list in the one case and the altered entry in the other are authenticated giving rise to liability in the rate-payer. It must follow a fortiori that if an alteration in the assessment list, in order to fasten liability on the rate-payer, is required to be made during the currency of the official year, equally, on a parity of reasoning, the assessment list, in order to give rise to liability in the rate-payer must also be authenticated before the expiry of the official year. There is, Page: 360sufficient indication in the various provisions of the Act to show that the authentication of the assessment list, in order to be valid and effective, must be made within the official year, though the tax so levied may be collected and recovered even after the expiry of the official year.”
15. As pointed out in Hubli Municipality's case (supra) the various provisions in an enactment have to be construed together to find out the Legislative intent behind the particular provision. Section 152(1) of the Act contemplates authentication of assessment list after disposal of appeal. Sub-section (2) reads thus:—
“Thereupon the said assessment list shall, subject to such alterations as may thereafter be made therein under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 149 or of Section 153 be conclusive evidence of the amount of property tax leviable on each land or building within the City in the financial year to which the list relates.”
As pointed out in Radhabai's case, 1986 (1) MPWN 113 pending objections or appeal payment of tax has to be as provided under section 158 of the Act.
16. It follows from the foregoing discussions that the finding of the District Court that tax could not be levied retrospectively is also correct.
17. In the result, I find that the revision petition is without merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is, consequently, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this revision petition.
Revision dismissed.