Delhi High Court
Mcd vs Sarbinder Grewal on 19 March, 2009
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3902/1993
% Date of decision : 19.03.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :
MCD ...... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate
versus
SARBINDER GREWAL ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/MCD assailing
the order dated 23.01.1993 passed by the learned ADJ. By the aforesaid
order, the learned ADJ set aside the assessment order passed by the Deputy
Assessor & Collector on 01.06.1990 in respect of flat bearing No. 6/605,
Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi for the assessment year 1990-1991
and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority for deciding the
same afresh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner/MCD has
preferred the present petition.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.6.1985, the
respondent No. 1 bought the flat in question for a consideration of
Rs.1,50,800/-. The aforesaid flat was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.4,387.50
paise w.e.f. 28.11.1985. The property was assessed by the petitioner at the
ratable value of Rs.47,390/- w.e.f. 28.11.1985 under Section 6(1) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act'). On 07.05.1990,
the petitioner/MCD called upon the respondent to file objections. The
respondent No.1 filed her objections on 16.04.1990. Vide order dated
01.06.1990, the Assessing Authority maintained the ratable value of the flat
at Rs.47,390/- w.e.f. 28.11.1990 on the ground that the actual rent received
was outside the purview of the DRC Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
assessment order, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned
Additional District Judge under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District
Judge set aside the order of the Assessing Authority on the ground that the
respondent No. 1 was entitled to get property assessed under Section 6 of
the DRC Act, even if the property in question was beyond the purview of the
said Act, after the amendment carried out w.e.f. 01.12.1988.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue is no
longer res integra and has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Delhi Paints and Chemicals vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee &
Anr. [50 (1993) DLT 207 (DB)]. In the aforesaid judgment, it was held by
the Division Bench that nothing in the DRC Act shall apply to any premises,
whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.3,500/-. It was
clarified that where there is no letting, the question of monthly rent
exceeding RS.3,500/- would not arise. In that case, provisions of Sections 6,
7 and 9(4) of the DRC Act would continue to apply and so also the principles
as laid down in the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of
Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Anr.
(AIR 1980 SC 541) and Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. M.C.D. and Others
(AIR 1985 SC 339), would continue to apply.
4. Guided by the aforesaid judgments, the inevitable conclusion is
that in the present case, the Assessing Authority was justified in holding that
as the property in question was fetching rent of more than Rs.3,500/- per
month for the relevant assessment year, the same fell outside the purview of
the DRC Act as amended w.e.f. 01.12.1988 and hence, the provisions of
Section 6 of the DRC Act could not apply.
5. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.01.1993
passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The assessment
order dated 01.06.1990 is maintained. The writ petition is allowed and
disposed of with no order as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI,J
MARCH 19, 2009
rkb
