J.L. Gugnani vs N.D.M.C.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1576 Del

Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 1576 Del
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2005

Delhi High Court

J.L. Gugnani vs N.D.M.C. on 21 November, 2005

Equivalent citations: 126 (2006) DLT 683

Author: M Katju

Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur

JUDGMENT

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 20th September, 2005.

2. We have perused the said judgment and heard learned counsel.

3. The appellant who is a tenant challenges the revision of house tax.

4. In our opinion a tenant has no locus standi in challenging the fixation or revision of house tax. It is only the owner of the property who has locus standi in the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the house tax is increased then the tenant may go outside the statutory limit laid down under the Delhi Rent Control Act. That may be so but in our opinion that is no ground to confer any locus standi on a tenant to challenge fixation or revision of house tax.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Section 73 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 which states:

Preparation of new assessment list-It shall be in the discretion of the Chairperson to prepare for the whole or any part of New Delhi, a new assessment list every year or to adopt the rateable value contained in the list for any year, with such alterations as may in particular cases be deemed necessary, as the rateable value for the year following, giving the same public notice as well as individual notices, to persons affected by such alterations, of the rateable value as if a new assessment list had been prepared.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a tenant is also a person affected and hence is covered under Section 73. We do not agree. In our opinion, the expression persons "affected" refers to persons directly affected i.e. owner of the property. A person who may be indirectly affected like a tenant does not come within the purview of Section 73. Hence we find no force in this submission.

8. Moreover, against the assessment or revision of house tax there is an alternate remedy under Section 115 of the NDMC Act. For this reason also the writ petition did not deserve to be entertained. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.