High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.12.2007CORAM :THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANA.S.No.845 of 1996 1. D.Ramani Mohan (Deceased)2. R.Parimala3. Swetha Prakash4. Sai Prakash5. Annapoorani6. R.Vinod Prakash .... Appellants/1st Defendant(Appellants 2 to 6 are brought on recordas LRs of the deceased sole appellant videC.M.P.Nos.17949 and 17950 of 1996dated 01.04.1997.)vs.1. The Commissioner Krishnagiri Municapality Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 2. Indian Bank Head Office, Rajaji Street, Madras – 600 001. ..... Respondents/Plaintiff and 2nd DefendantAppeal filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 28.02.1995 madein O.S.No.66 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Judge, Krishnagiri. For Appellant : Mr.M.SathiyamoorthyFor Respondent : Mr.C.R.Muraliadharan for R1 Mr.G.Raja for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia for R2JUDGMENTThis appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated28.02.1995 made in O.S.No.66 of 1989 on the file Subordinate Judge,Krishnagri. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The appellant herein was the first defendant in the suit beforethe trial court. It is seen that the suit was filed by the firstrespondent herein against the appellant and also the second respondent,seeking a money decree for a sum of of Rs.61,858.80/- to be paid with12% interest and costs. It is not in dispute that the appellant / D1 hasbeen the owner of the property at D.No.67 (Old D.No.1E10), BangaloreRoad, Krishnagiri Town within the municipal limit of the firstrespondent. The property tax for the II half of the year 1985-86 wasfixed at Rs.15,464.70/- and for 1986-87, Rs.15,464.70/- was fixed asproperty tax, each for the I and II half year and for the I half year of1987-88, the tax was fixed at the same rate and accordingly, as statedby the first respondent, Rs.61,858.80/- had to be paid as property tax.The suit was filed claiming the said amount to be paid with 12% interestand costs. It is seen that the first respondent / plaintiff had sentpre-suit notice, dated 28.12.1988 to the appellant, claiming the saidamount, the copy of the notice has been marked as Ex.A.3.3. The defence raised by the appellant / D1 before the trial court,as well as before this court is that the first respondent had notfollowed the procedure, which is applicable for Rent ControlProceedings, in deciding the rental value of the property, in order tocalculate the property tax.4. Mr.M.Sathiyamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellantsubmitted that the trial court has not considered the factual aspectsthat the first respondent had fixed the property tax without followingthe guidelines applicable for fixing the rent under the Tamil NaduBuilding (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and decreed the suit andtherefore, the impugned Judgment and Decree are to be set aside.5. It is not in dispute that the property has been mortgaged withthe second respondent Indian Bank, that is why the second respondent hasbeen arrayed as a formal party in the suit.6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contendedthat the theater had been are closed long back and the same was not runby the appellant during the period of assessment, however, the same wasnot considered by the trial court.7. In this appeal, it is not in dispute that the appellant is theowner of the theater. As per the evidence of P.W.1, Revenue Inspector ofthe first respondent, the value of the building was assessed atRs.16,00,000/- and after deducting 10% towards depreciation, the valuewas assessed at Rs.14,40,000/- and the site was measured at 1,106Sq.metre and the value of the same would be Rs.541/- per Sq.metre, onthe date of assessment and accordingly, the value of the land wascomputed at Rs.5,98,346/-. Again 10% was deducted towards depreciationand the balance was accordingly, arrived at. Based on the aforesaid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ calculation, the annual income of the property was computed atRs.10,070/-. Based on which, property tax, including Education Tax andLibrary Cess was arrived at Rs.15,464.70/-8. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the working sheet prepared bythe Commissioner, Krishnagiri Municipality. Under Ex.A.1, working sheetof the property tax on the assessment of Central theater, details aboutthe extent of the site, ground floor, auditorium value thereon and otherdetails have been given with the details about the deductions towardsdepreciation by the first respondent. 9. It is seen from the evidence that the appellant / D1 had notproduced supporting documents or working sheet to show, what was theextent of the site and the building and also the value thereon. Withoutfurnishing the details, it is not open to the appellant, being the ownerof the property, to agitate the assessment, merely by saying that theprovisions of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & RentControl) Act, 1960 was not followed.10. It is seen that Ex.A.2 is the letter, dated 28.10.1987 sent bythe appellant to the first respondent, whereby the appellant hadrequested the first respondent to reduce the tax on the ground thatexorbitant tax has been assessed by the first respondent. In the saidletter, the appellant has not specifically given any reason to reducethe assessment of tax and to show that the assessment was exorbitant.11. As per Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu District MunicipalitiesAct, 1920, (herein after referred to as Act) for the purpose of levy ofproperty tax, every building shall be assessed together with its sitesand other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. Suchproperty tax shall be calculated as under :a) Firstly, the basic property tax for a building shall becalculated at the rate fixed by the municipal council;b) Secondly, the additional basic property tax for such buildingshall be calculated at the rate fixed by the municipal council and addedto the basic property tax so arrived at under clause (a);c) Thirdly, on the quantum arrived at under clauses (a) and (b) theconcession having regard to the age of the building at the rate fixed bythe municipal council shall be deducted and the amount so arrived atshall be the property tax payable in respect of any building for everyhalf-year and shall be paid by the owner or occupier of such buildingwithin the half-year period.12. It is not in dispute that for revising the property tax inaccordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District MunicipalitiesAct and Rules made thereunder, subject to the provisions, there shall bean interval of five years between one general revision and anothergeneral revision and as such, there is no violation by the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent in fixing the property tax. In the instant case, it is seenthat the first respondent has assessed the property tax, considering thevalue and the extent of the building together with its site and properdeduction for depreciation in the value has been given. It is not thecase of the appellant that the revision was against the Section 85 ofthe Act.13. As per the Act, aggrieved by the assessment of property tax,the appellant could have preferred appeal before the Taxation AppealsCommittee under Section 89 of the Act. However, the appellant has notexhausted the remedy of appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee.14. In the impugned judgment, the trial court has discussed indetail, on the fixation of property tax by the first respondent. As perthe evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1, the extent of the ground floor isstated as 513.68/- per Sq.meters and the extent of the Auditorium withA/c. sheet is 519.85 Sq.meters and totally the extent is stated as1105.53 Sq.meters. As per the value of the property, at the rate ofRs.541/- per Sq.meter, the value of the site was computed atRs.5,98,346/-, of which 10% was deducted towards depreciation for thebuilding. As stated earlier, the value of the building has been assessedat Rs.16,00,000/-. After giving 10% deduction towards depreciation, thevalue has been assessed at Rs.14,40,000/-. On the value of the property,6% property tax has been assessed. 15. Though the appellant / D1 had disputed the receipt of thenotice regarding assessment, it has been admitted by Ex.A.2, reply aboutthe assessment notice received. With regard to the same, the trial courthas given a finding that in view of the reply, receipt of Ex.A.1, noticeissued by the first respondent had been admitted by the appellant.16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend thatthe matter be remitted back to the trial court or the appellant bepermitted to approach Municipal authorities, by way of revision, afterallowing this appeal. Admittedly, the tax relates to the year 1985-86second half year to 1987-88 first half year. At this juncture, it wouldnot be proper for the court to set aside the impugned Judgment andDecree and remit back the same for fresh disposal by the trial court orto provide an opportunity to the appellant / D1 to approach themunicipal authorities.17. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the firstrespondent that had there been an appeal before the Taxation AppealsCommittee of the first respondent, Municipality, the committee couldhave considered the alleged grievance expressed by the appellant. It isseen that the first respondent had produced Ex.A.1, working sheet ofproperty tax relating to the suit property. However, the date of thedocument is not available, though it was attested as true copy by thefirst respondent on 05.12.1992. As the first respondent has given the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ details about the area of the site, ground floor, other portions of thebuilding and the value thereon with proper deductions, on the grounddepreciation and computed the general tax, educational tax and librarycess, without establishing the cases, the appellant cannot insist thecourt to remit back the matter for fresh disposal.18. The appellant / D1 could have produced supporting documents,for disputing the correctness of the assessment and mere denial denialof the genuineness of the working sheet of property tax assessment wouldnot be sufficient to allow this appeal. Further, only after receipt ofnotice from the first respondent, the appellant / D1 could have sent theletter, Ex.A.2, dated 28.10.1987. In such circumstances, the court is ofthe view that no case has been made out in favour of the appellant forsetting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree and to remit back thesame to the court below for fresh disposal or to provide an opportunityfor preferring appeal before the Taxation Appeals Committee, constitutedunder the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. Therefore, there is noerror or infirmity in the impugned Judgment and Decree, directing theappellants herein to pay Rs.61,858.80/- towards property tax for theaforesaid period. However, this court is of the view that to meet theends of justice, it would be proper to direct the appellants to pay only6% interest, instead of 12% interest for the aforesaid amount, as perthe impugned judgment and to pay proportionate costs. Accordingly, theappeal is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs in thisappeal.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsvnTo1. The Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 2. The Record Keeper,V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.D.Shivakumaran, Advocate, SR.73097. A.S.No.845 of 1996 NG(CO)RVL 02.04.2008