New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/682953
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnJul-27-1988
Case NumberRegular Second Appeal No. 71 of 1974
Judge D.P. Wadhwa, J.
Reported in36(1988)DLT223
ActsPunjab Municipal Act, 1911 - Sections 86
AppellantNew Delhi Municipal Committee
RespondentSir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd.
Advocates: B.J. Nayyar and; A.B. Singh, Advs
Cases ReferredSir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Excerpt:
- d.p. wadhwa, j.(1) this second appeal by the new delhi municipal committee (for short 'the ndmc') has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1973 of the addl. district judge, delhi, whereby he reversed the judgment and degree of the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. (2) the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the ndmc challenging assessment of the property for the year 1969-70 under the punjab municipal act 1911 (for short 'the act'), as extended to delhi. principal contention which had been raised by the plaintiff was that while arriving at the annual rental value, the ndmc could not have taken into account the house-tax and water charges payable by the tenants. i, however, need not give the facts in detail as the issue as to whether the suit was barred under s. 86 of the act which was raised by the ndmc has since been decided by a bench decision of this court in the case of the same very parties but for a different assessment year. the case is sir sobha singh & sons (p) ltd. v. new delhi municipal committee 1988 d.l.t. 91. (3) as mentioned above, the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 23.3.1973. and against that the plaintiff filed the first appeal and the learned lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court by judgment dated 7.12.1973. thus, this second appeal by the ndmc. s. 86 of the act reads as under :- '86.(1) no objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment, nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned, in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this act. (2) no refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules there under.'(4) as noted above, one of the issues was as to whether the suit was barred under s. 86 of the act. the act provides remedy by way of appeal. admittedly, no appeal was filed. the answer on this issue has to be in favor of the ndmc in view of the aforesaid judgment reported in 1988 d.l.t. 91. since the suit was not maintainable, the present appeal has to succeed. accordingly, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court affirmed. there will be no order is to costs.
Judgment:

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This second appeal by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short 'the NDMC') has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1973 of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, whereby he reversed the judgment and degree of the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the Ndmc challenging assessment of the property for the year 1969-70 under the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (for short 'the Act'), as extended to Delhi. Principal contention which had been raised by the plaintiff was that while arriving at the annual rental value, the Ndmc could not have taken into account the house-tax and water charges payable by the tenants. I, however, need not give the facts in detail as the issue as to whether the suit was barred under S. 86 of the Act which was raised by the Ndmc has since been decided by a Bench decision of this court in the case of the same very parties but for a different assessment year. The case is Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee 1988 D.L.T. 91.

(3) As mentioned above, the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 23.3.1973. and against that the plaintiff filed the first appeal and the learned lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court by judgment dated 7.12.1973. Thus, this second appeal by the NDMC. S. 86 of the Act reads as under :-

'86.(1) No objection shall be taken to any valuation or assessment, nor shall the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed be questioned, in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act. (2) No refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules there under.'

(4) As noted above, one of the issues was as to whether the suit was barred under S. 86 of the Act. The Act provides remedy by way of appeal. Admittedly, no appeal was filed. The answer on this issue has to be in favor of the Ndmc in view of the aforesaid judgment reported in 1988 D.L.T. 91. Since the suit was not maintainable, the present appeal has to succeed. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court affirmed. There will be no order is to costs.