TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (11) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tenancy to three persons who were paying rent to him amounting to Rs. 78.25p. per month, that the said amount was taken into consideration by the Corporation in determining the rateable value of the premises, and that the Corporation determined the ratable value on the basis that the premises in dispute was fetching rent at the rate of R. 60/plus Rs. 78.26p. = Rs. 138.26p. It was submitted that the respondent (plaintiff) was entitled under S. 121(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to recover from the petitioner (tenant) the difference between the amount of the property tax levied on the property and the amount of tax which would be livable upon the premises if the said tax was calculated only on the amount of rent of Rs. 60/- per month paid by the petitioner (tenant) to the respondent without taking into consideration the sum of Rs. 78.26p. that was paid by the sub-tenants to the petitioner (tenant), that the respondent thus paid an extra sum of Rs. 561.75p. to the Municipal Corporation for the period 1969 to 1972, and that he was entitled to recover the same from the petitioner. The petitioner (tenant) contested the suit raising various pleas. 3. The suit was heard by Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of the Rent Act, while a Division Bench of this Court, S. N. Andley C. J. and S. N. Shankar J., held in Sunderdess Tola Ram v Municipal Corporation of Delhi, C. M. (M) No. 197 of 1971, decided on 26th March, 1973, that the right given by S. 121(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was set at naught by S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and that the-provisions of the Rent Act prevailed, it being a later and special statute. The learned Judge further observed that the decision of H, R. Khanna, C. J. was not noticed by the Division Bench. In the circumstances, the learned Judge considered that the questions involved in the case need to be decided by a larger Bench. 5. The learned Judge indicated the following two questions as arising for determination in the Revision:- " (1). Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi can fix the annual ' rateable value at a figure higher than the, amount of rent paid by the tenant to the landlord by taking into consideration the amount of rent paid by the subtenants to the tenant; and (2) If so, whether the .landlord is en, titled to recover under Section 121 of the Corporation Act the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of S. 120 the said taxes are livable, that person shall be entitled to receive from his tenant the difference between the amount of the property taxes levied upon him and the amount which would be livable upon him the said taxes were calculated an the amount of rent payable to him. (2)................................... (3) Any person entitled to receive any own under this Section shall have for the recovery there the same rights and remedies as it such sum were rent payable to him by the person from whom he is entitled to receive the same." "7. Lawful increase of standard rent in certain cases and recovery of other charges ........................ (1) .............................. (2) Where a landlord pays in respect of the premises any charge for electricity or water consumed in the premises or any other charge levied by a local authority having jurisdiction in the area which. is , ordinarily payable by the tenant. he may recover from the ten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect over the provision in S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 10. We have, however, to consider the decision in Sunderdass Tola Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) (CM (M) No. 197 of 1971, D/- 26-3-1973) (Delhi). In that case, until the financial year 1969-70, the building in question was assessed to house tax on an annual rateable value of Rs. 50,240/-. In July, 1970, the Assistant Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi proposed to increase the rateable value from Rs, 50,240/- to Rs. 61,500/-, with effect from 1st April, 1970, on the ground that there were additions to the building and changes in the rent. The owners , of the building filed their objections to the said proposal, stating that there had been no increase in the rent which was being recovered by them from the !tenants , that some of the tenants bad constructions in made the Said building without the permission of the owners-landlords or of the Building Department of the Municipal Corporation. The Deputy Assessor and Collector made a verification at the site and confirmed that the owners-landlords were getting the same rent as before from the various tenants. He, however, took th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me into operation the same day are repugnant to each other, that which last received the Royal assent must prevail and be considered pro tanto a repeal of the other." In that view, the Division Bench expressed its opinion that the right given by S. 121(1) of the corporation Act landlords was set at naught by S 7.(2) of the Rent Control Act 12. With due respect we are unable to to agree with the above opinion of the Division Bench. In the first place, the' said opinion was an obiter dictum. In the second place, the reason given by the Division Bench for its view, namely that the Rent Control Act was a later and special statute was: not correct. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was enacted in 1957. At that time, the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952) was in force. it contained a provision in Section 6 thereof in terms identical with the provision in S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is not, Therefore, correct to proceed on the basis that S. 7(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , was a later provision. Further, as pointed out by H. R. Khanna C. J. in Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman (1971) 1 Delhi 639 (supra) the bar created by the provisi....