Gurbachan Singh, Proprietor Anand Poultry Farm vs Municipal Committee and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—This petition, is directed against the appellate order dated October 13, 1980 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala (exercising the appellate powers under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911).

The petitioner is the owner of a poultry shed situate at Sirhind. The annual rental value of this property for the year 1978-79 was assessed at Rs. 864/-. On September 19, 1979, notice, Exhibit P-2, was issued to him to show cause why the annual rental value of this property be not increased to Rs. 71,280/- with effect from April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980. This notice led to the passing of the order dated February 29, 1980 (Annexure P-4) by the Vice-President, Municipal Committee, Sirhind and the same reads thus :-

"Assessee has not appeared on the date fixed in spite of the receipt of summons. His written objections have been considered from which no reason for reduction is made out. As the assessee even does not agree that he had made some additions in the building when substantial additions have been made in the unit from the previous. Besides this, it is a business concern which is to be assessed at a higher rate from that of the residential one. Therefore, considering all these things, annual assessment at Rs. 71,280/- made by the office is being confirmed."

Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, which was entrusted to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala for disposal. The same was dismissed by order dated October 13, 1980.

The appellate order cannot be sustained. The appellate authority did not invite its attention to the rule of law laid down in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others, . where the apex Court had authoritatively laid down that the annual value cannot exceed standard rent. Before embarking upon an increase in the annual rental value, it was mandatory for the authorities to assess the standard rent, Moreover, increase in the annual rental value cannot be made retrospectively.

Mr. Mittal submits that the petitioner had contested the election against the President of the Municipal Committee and it was for this reason that penal action was initiated. I am not inclined to express any opinion in this regard since I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, I quash the impugned order dated October 13, 1980 and remand the appeal to the appellate authority for fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made supra. The appellate authority will take into consideration all the submissions made by the petitioner before it. Mr. Mittal states at the Bar that the recovery be not effected till the decision of the appeal by the appellate authority. I order accordingly

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.