- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 27 May 2016
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 9554/2007
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 27, 2016 bs (corrected & released on 21st June, 2016)
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27th May, 2016. + W.P.(C) 9554/2007 SHRI DAN SINGH BAWA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, Adv. Versus N.D.M.C. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The petition impugns the order / judgment dated 3rd November, 2007 of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) acting as the Appellate Authority under Section 115 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (NDMC Act) of dismissal of House Tax Appeal (HTA) No.378/2004 preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 14th August, 2000 and 14th September, 2001 of assessment of rateable value of property known as Marshal House, Hanuman Road, New Delhi-110001 of the petitioners at Rs.1,29,19,300/- with effect from 1st April, 1998 and following the said rateable value for the years 2001-2002. 2. The petition came up for admission on 25th January, 2008 when, in view of the fact that the judgment of this Court was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2772/2009 titled State Trading Corporation India Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council, the petition was admitted for hearing and the parties were given liberty to have the matter listed once the appeal filed by State Trading Corporation India Ltd. was decided by the Supreme Court. However, the interim stay sought, of recovery of property tax on the basis of the impugned assessment, was declined and the application for interim relief dismissed. 3. The petition, on 6th September, 2011 was dismissed in default of appearance of the petitioners but upon application for restoration being filed by the petitioners was vide order dated 30th September, 2011 restored to its original position. 4. When the petition was listed on 9th May, 2016, the counsel for the petitioners was apprised of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Trading Corporation India Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council AIR 2016 SC 1269 as well as my judgment in N.D.M.C. Vs. M/s Om Parkash & Co. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2504 and on his request the matter was adjourned to 20th May, 2016. The counsel for the petitioners was orally also informed that may be in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Trading Corporation India Ltd. supra, it was better for the petitioners to withdraw this petition. The matter has been taken up for hearing today. The counsel for the petitioners states that he has no instructions to withdraw the petition. The counsels have been heard. 5. The rateable value of the property aforesaid of the petitioners till 31st March, 1997 was Rs.22,62,150/- less 10% on the basis of the rent being fetched by the property. Vide ex-parte order dated 8th September, 1999, the rateable value of the property with effect from 1st April, 1998 was enhanced to Rs.1,49,71,000/- less 10%. Upon representation being made by the petitioners, the assessment was reopened and vide impugned assessment order dated 14th August, 2000, the rateable value with effect from 1st April, 1998, on the basis of the rent being fetched by the property was assessed at Rs.1,29,19,300/-. On the plea of the petitioners that some of the tenants have vacated, it was further ordered that the petitioners will be eligible for consideration for vacancy remission. Vide impugned assessment order dated 14th September, 2001, the rateable value for the year 2001-2002 was maintained at Rs.1,29,19,300/-. 6. The grievance of the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid rateable value is (i) that the respondent NDMC has included in the rent the charges which one of the tenants was paying for air-conditioning plant and machinery separately provided and the reliance by the respondent NDMC on an order dated 10th March, 1999 of this Court in RSA No.33/1989 titled Bawa Dan Singh Vs. NDMC was misconceived, as this Court vide the said order has merely dismissed the second appeal without deciding the question of inclusion of air-conditioning charges in ren
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.