http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5203 of 2000

PETITIONER:

Calcutta Guj. Education Society & Anr.

RESPONDENT:

Vs.

Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/2003

BENCH:

M.B. Shah & D.M.Dharmadhikari.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 5204/2000, 5960/2000,

1572/2001 & 2212/2001

Dharmadhikari J.

The present appeal along with other connected appeals is

on the question of validity and proper interpretation of

impugned provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act

1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), which are

contained in Part IV Chapter XII under the Heading

"Powers of Taxation and Fixation of Consolidated Rates.

The three Judges' Special Bench of the High Court of

Calcutta on a reference made by the Division Bench of the said

Court, on the validity and interpretation of the impugned

provisions of the Act relating to taxes on property has delivered

a common judgment in different Writ Petitions, which has

been assailed by tenants, sub-tenants and landlords by

separate appeals which are being decided by this common

judgment. It is not in dispute that the State Legislature is

competent to make a law conferring authority on the local

bodies to impose property tax to generate revenue for

providing civic amenities like supply of water, drainage,

sewerage, collection, removal and disposal of solid waste, fire

prevention and fire safety, maintenance of streets and public

places and other allied services in the municipal areas where

lands or buildings are situated. A brief survey of the history of

the legislation is necessary.

The repealed Act i.e. Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951

levied equal tax on owner and occupier of the lands and

buildings within the municipal area. It provided for issuance of

two separate Bills where the premises are occupied only by one

tenant. The occupant's share of tax was collected from the

tenant as the occupier's Bill. However, in the case of premises

having more than one occupier, the 1951 Act had provided that

the taxes under both the Bills i.e. the owner's and the

occupier's Bill, would be paid by the owner, but in turn, he was

competent to collect half of the total taxes paid i.e. occupier's

share proportionately from each occupier. The taxes were

charged on the rent payable and the rate was also low. The

working of the above provision of the Act of 1951 resulted in

development of a system where the occupier's share of tax was

included in the rent by the owner and both the shares were

paid by the owner to the municipality instead of owner paying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 20

the taxes and then pursuing remedies against the tenants for

collection of the portion of tax imposed by the Act on the

tenant or occupier.

In conformity with the above mentioned provisions of

the Municipal Act 1951, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act

1956 (shortly referred to as 'Tenancy Act') provides that 50%

of the total property tax can be included in the "Fair rent."

According to the Corporation, with the ever-increasing

population of Calcutta and requirement felt of increasing and

improving the civic amenities, it is found necessary to increase

property tax particularly on lands and buildings which are being

put to use within the municipal area for non-residential and

commercial purposes. The earlier system which existed under

the Municipal Act of 1951, the revenue collected through

property tax was limited by the "Fair rent" fixed under the

tenancy law. To augment revenue of the Corporation for

increasing and maintaining the civic amenities it was felt

necessary that a separate 'Surcharge' should be levied on

properties occupied for non-residential or commercial

purposes.

The present Act was enacted in 1980 providing for

valuation on the basis of market rate of rent and higher rate of

tax by introducing a consolidated rate of tax combining the

tax on owners and tax on occupiers. The 'surcharge'

leviable on the occupiers of properties for non-

residential/commercial use was included in the "consolidated

rate." The present Act by the impugned provisions provides for

collection of the entire tax named as "consolidated rate"

inclusive of owner's and occupier's share from the owner with

the right being given to the owner to make recovery of unpaid

'surcharge' from the occupier or the tenant as 'rent'.

For appreciating the nature of various challenges made

to specific provisions of the Act, it would be necessary to

examine generally the scheme of the Act under Chapter XII

on subject of Power of taxation and fixation of

"consolidated rates." Under Section 2(60) the word

"Occupier" is defined to include an owner living in or otherwise

using his building and a tenant or any person for the time

being paying or liable to pay to the owner the 'rent' or any

portion of the rent. Section 2(62) defines the word 'owner' to

include person for the time being receiving the rent of the

property on his own account or as agent or trustee. Section

170 is a charging section which empowers the Corporation

amongst other taxes to levy tax on consolidated rate on lands

and buildings. Section 171 and 171(2) provide that such

consolidated rate shall be 11% where the annual value of the

property does not exceed Rs.600/-. Where the annual value

exceeds Rs.600/- but does not exceed Rs.18,000/- the

percentage or annual value is worked out on a mathematical

formula which is specified thus "by dividing the annual value by

600 and then adding 10 to the quotient. The sum thus worked

out being rounded off to the nearest first place of the decimal."

Where the annual value exceeds Rs.18,000/- the consolidated

rate would be 40% of the annual value."

Sub-section (4) of Section 171 which is mainly attacked

by the appellants provides that "where any land and building or

hut or portion thereof is used for commercial or non-

residential purpose, the Corporation may levy a surcharge on

the consolidated rate on such land or building or hut or

portion thereof at such rate not exceeding 50% of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 20

consolidated rate as the Corporation may from time to time

determine." It further provides that "where only a portion of

the land or building or hut is used for such purposes i.e. other

than residence, the amount of the consolidated rate payable in

respect of the said portion shall be separately calculated while

fixing the consolidated rate."

Section 174 lays down the method of determination of

'annual valuation.' The said section provides that for the

purpose of assessment of consolidated rate the annual value of

any land or building shall be deemed to be the gross annual

rent including service charges, if any, at which such land or

building might, at the time of assessment, be reasonably

expected to let from year to year, less an amount of 10% for

the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain

such land or building in a state to command such 'gross rent.'

Sub-section 4A of Section 171 lays down an alternative

mode of determination of annual valuation for consolidated rate

where this gross annual value on the basis of rent, likely to be

fetched, is unascertainable. By the alternative mode 'gross

annual rent of such land or building shall be deemed to be

7.5% of the value of the building obtained by adding the

estimated cost of erecting building at the time of assessment

less a reasonable amount to be deducted on account of

depreciation to the estimated present market value of the

land.' Section 178 enables State Government to frame rules

for determining value of any land and building in Calcutta and

the rules so framed and regulations thereunder are to

constitute the Municipal Assessment Code.

This Court in the case of India Automobiles Ltd. vs.

Calcutta Municipal Corporation [2002 (3) SCC 388]

dealing with the provisions of the Act, has indicated all relevant

factors which have to be taken into account for determination

of annual letting value and assessment of tax on properties. In

such determination, the relevant circumstances are amongst

others actual rent received, hypothetical standard rent, the

rent paid by sub-tenant, if any, the prevalent rate of rent of

lands and building in the vicinity of the property being

assessed. The relevant observations of this Court in the case of

India Automobiles Ltd (Supra) reads thus :-

"The argument that the rent actually received by

the owner should always be deemed to be

reasonable rent in the absence of fraud, collusion

and other extraneous considerations is too general

and broad proposition of law which cannot be

accepted for the purpose of determining the annual

value of the property for the purposes of Section

174 of the 1980 Act. In the light of clear and

unambiguous provisions of Section 174 of the 1980

Act, it cannot be held that the amount realised by a

tenant from a sub-tenant cannot, at all be taken

into consideration for the purposes of determining

the gross annual rent in the absence of extraneous

considerations. There is no substance in the

submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that allowing the municiapl corporations

to assess the annual rateable value on the basis of

the income of a tenant from the property would be

grossly unfair and would have the effect of

rendering the rate provisions of the Act

unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The

Act itself has taken care by making sufficient

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20

provision in Sections 193 and 194 regarding the

liability to pay the rent and apportionment of such

liability when the premises are assessed, let or

sub-let. On proof of creation of sub-tenancy, the

owner of the building may also be entitled to seek

eviction of their tenants under the relevant

provisions of the Rent Acts applicable in the State

where the land or property is located. We find

some substance in the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that permitting the

municipal authorities to assess the annual value

only on the basis of the rent paid by the sub-tenant

to the tenant and fixing its liability on the owner

may adversely affect the owners of the buildings

who have let their premises at a time when rents

were meagre and who under the rent control

statutes are deprived of getting possession back of

the lands and buildings from their tenants. The

1980 Act, therefore, requires application of mind by

the municipal authorities to determine the rents on

the basis of reasonableness by keeping into

account all relevant circumstances including the

actual rent received by the owner, hypothetical

standard rent, the rent being received by the

tenant from his sub-tenant and other relevant

consideration, such as prevalent rate of rent of

lands and building in the vicinity of the property

being assessed. Only because the owner of the

building is not getting the same rent which the

sub-tenant is paying to his lessor, cannot be made

a basis to deprive the corporations from

determining the annual valuation and taxing the

land or building on that basis. If such a plea is

accepted, it would be against the provisions of the

statute which has been enacted to provide civic

services in the form of water, drainage, sewerage,

collection, removal and disposal of solid waste, fire

prevention and fire safety maintenance of street

and public places etc., in the municipal area where

such land or building is situate.

..................We are of the view that the basis for

determination of annual rent value has to be the

standard rent where the Rent Control Act is

applicable and in all other cases reasonable

determination of such rent by the municipal

authorities keeping in view various factors as

indicated herein earlier, including the rent which

the tenant is getting from his sub-tenant. In

appropriate cases the owner of the property may

be in a position to satisfy the authorities that the

gross annual rent of the building of which the

annual valuation was being determined cannot be

more than the actual rent received by such owner

from his tenant. The municipal authorities shall

keep in mind the various pronouncements of this

Court, the statutory provisions made in the

specified Municipal Acts, keeping in mind the

applicability or non-applicability of the Rent Act and

the peculiar circumstances of each case, to find out

the gross annual rent of the building including

service charges, if any, at which such land or

building might, at the time of assessment, be

reasonably expected to let from year to year in

terms of Section 174 of the 1980 Act".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 20

Further, sub-section (6) of section 178 obligates the

Municipal Commissioner to supply on payment necessary

information to owner, lessee or occupier about the

apportionment of the "consolidated rate" of such property

among several occupiers of such land or building. Furnishing of

such information, however, does not preclude the Corporation

from recovering the dues from any of such persons owning or

occupying land or building. Section 180 provides for revision of

the assessment of valuation for consolidated rate and enables

owners and occupiers of the property to submit returns

pursuant to public notice for revision of assessment of annual

value. Section 182 obligates the owner or occupier to submit

returns in the prescribed time. The assessment list or the

revised assessment list is open to inspection and a public

notice for that purpose shall be issued in accordance with

Section 184. Before revising the annual valuation, public

notices as also written notices will be given to the owners and

occupiers and they will be heard by the Municipal

Commissioner. This is the requirement of sub-section (1) to

(4) of Section 184. Where the assessments are amended, a

fresh notice is required to be issued to owners, lessees and

occupiers for consideration of the proposed amendment.

Section 186 gives a right of filing objections against valuation

or assessment, to the owner as also to any person liable to pay

the consolidated rate. Under Section 188, the objector will

have an opportunity of hearing on his objection before the

competent authority. Section 189 provides for an appeal

against the assessment to Assessment Tribunal. The appeal

can be preferred by the owner or person liable to pay

consolidated rate. The pre-condition of hearing of the appeal is

deposit of consolidated rate determined. Section 193 specifies

the persons on whom 'primarily' consolidated rate is leviable.

The persons specified include the 'lessor,' where the land or

building is let; the 'superior lessor,' where the land or building

is sub-let and 'owner' or the person in whom the right to let

such land or building vests, where the land or building is unlet.

The most controversial provision the validity of which is

questioned by the appellant is Section 194 providing for

apportionment of liability or "consolidated rate" between

owner, tenant, sub-tenant or occupier. Sub-section (1) of

Section 194 lays down that where annual valuation exceeds the

amount calculated on the basis of actual rent the person on

whom the "consolidated rate" is 'primarily' leviable shall be

entitled to receive from the tenant the difference between the

amount of the consolidated rate and amount which would be

leviable if the "consolidated rate" were calculated on the basis

of the 'rent' payable to him. The object of this provision is that

consolidated rate calculated on the basis of rent fetchable from

the premises should not be a sole burden on the lessor or the

owner. His burden of tax is limited to the consolidated

rate to be calculated on the basis of actual rent received

by him. The additional burden of "consolidated rate" is

shared by the tenant or occupier including 'surcharge' where

the property is being used for non-residential/commercial

purposes. The same method is to be adopted in accordance

with sub-section (2) of Section 194 where the accommodation

is sub-let. In that eventuality, the burden of tax on tenant

would be proportionate to consolidated rate calculable on the

basis of actual rent received by him and the remaining which is

to be calculated on the basis of likely rent would be shared by

the sub-tenant.

Section 195 of the Act lays down the mode of recovery

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 20

of the 'consolidated rate'. Under sub-section (1) of the said

section, the primary liability would be of the 'lessor,' 'superior

lessor' or 'the owner.' If the 'person primarily liable' to pay

the "consolidated rate," fails to pay, it will be recoverable from

the occupier by attachment of his rent in proportion to the sum

due against him. On such recovery from the occupier, the

occupier would be liable to adjustment of his dues to the

lessor, superior lessor or the owner. Apart from the above,

there are other modes of recovery by a service of Bill and

notice of demand and coercive method under Bengal Public

Demands Recovery Act, 1913. On failure of the person to pay

the tax on demand under section 219, recovery can be made

by distress and sale of his movable property. Section 225

empowers the Municipal Commissioner to recover the

consolidated rate from the occupier by attachment of his rent.

On failure of occupier to pay such rent, the amount will be

recovered as arrears for tax.

The other controversial provision, which is forcefully

attacked by the appellant, is contained in Section 230 providing

for apportionment of "consolidated rate" by the 'person

primarily liable to pay' i.e. the lessor, superior lessor or the

owner of the land or building. This provision empowers 'the

person primarily liable' to recover the consolidated rate to the

extent of half from the occupier, if there is only one occupier of

the property. If there are more than one occupier, he can

recover from each occupier 'half of such sum as bears to the

entire amount of rate so paid by the owner-the same

proportion as the value of the portion of the land or building in

the occupation of such occupier bears to the entire value of

such land or building.' It further provides that if there are

more than one occupier 'such half of the amount may be

apportioned and recovered from each occupier in such

proportion as the annual value of the portion occupied by him

bears to the total annual value of such land or building.'

With regard to the 'surcharge' included in the

'consolidate rate' which is levied on properties used for non-

residential/commercial purposes, clause (b) of Section 230

empowers the 'person primarily liable' to recover entire amount

of surcharge from the occupier and if there are more than one

such occupier, the surcharge is to be apportioned and

recovered in such proportion as the annual value of the portion

occupied by him bears to the total annual value of such

property.

Section 231 is also a provision to which serious

exception has been taken by the appellant. It provides that

the 'person primarily liable' to pay any consolidated rate is

entitled to recover portion of the consolidated rate including

surcharge from the occupier of the property and for that

purpose 'the person primarily liable' shall have the same rights

and remedies as if such sum were 'rent' payable to him by

the person from whom he is entitled to recover such

sum.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this

batch of petitions in their own way and different status of their

clients, have mainly challenged the provisions of sections 184,

189, 194, 230, 231 and 234A. It is contended in common that

they are unworkable, impractical and hence unconstitutional.

It is submitted that although, a major portion of the tax is

actually levied on the tenants, sub-tenants and the occupants,

there is no proper machinery, method and mode of assessment

by involving this class of persons. They are, thus, denied

opportunity in the method of valuation and assessment. There

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 20

are no legal and constitutional safeguards against illegal

determination of consolidated rate before effecting recovery by

coercive action of attachment of rent or distress and sale of the

property on which tax is imposed.

We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Corporation, who has taken us through the various

provisions of the Act. He strenuously urged that the alleged

ground of unworkability of the provisions is a total

misconception of the provisions and their misinterpretation. It

is submitted that primary liability to pay tax is on the owner of

the property but in cases where the property has been let or

sublet, the burden of tax is apportioned between the owner as

lessor and the lessee or sub-lessee as the occupants. It is

submitted that it is impractical in a metropolitan city like

Calcutta where there are several multi-storeyed buildings to

grant opportunity of participation in determination of valuation

and assessment of 'consolidated rate' to all and at every stage.

It is also submitted that the provisions of the Act do provide a

reasonable safeguard to the tenants, sub-tenants or occupiers

to object to the assessment or revised assessment. They have

right to file return, file objections and on deposit of tax

determined, prefer appeals. It is submitted that none of the

provisions can be said to be unworkable and, in fact, they have

satisfactorily worked so far. It is submitted that if there are

any grievances against the action of any of the Authorities

under the Act, it is open to the aggrieved party to approach the

appellate forum or the regular courts in accordance with law.

Having thus examined the scheme of the Act as also

broadly the grounds urged, we shall now deal with specific

provisions of the Act which have been assailed by the counsel

appearing for the appellants.

Challenge to Section 194 read with Section 230:

In assailing the provisions of Section 194 read with 230

of the Act it is argued that although, the owner is liable to the

extent only of 50% of the property tax, he is authorised to

collect the entire 'surcharge' as well as water tax/other charges

from the tenants who are ultimately liable. The liability of

landlord is confined only to 50% of the property tax on the

basis of the actual rent received while the remaining portion of

the 'consolidated rate' inclusive of, surcharge, water tax and

other charges are recoverable from the tenants. For

determination of the 'consolidated rate' even though the

liability of the landlord is limited to 50% of the property tax, all

requisite notices for valuation and assessment are given to the

landlords who may not bother to seriously contest the case

before the competent authority because their liability is limited

and rest of the liability is on the tenant.

We have examined the provisions contained in sections

194 and 230 of the Act and other relevant provisions. We find

that the grievance raised is not borne out from the provisions

contained in Chapter XII of the Act which indicate various steps

for determination of 'consolidated rates.' We have examined

the scheme in detail and we find that at the time of

determination of valuation, assessment, revision of assessment

and amendment of the assessment, public and written notices

are required to be given to all concerned parties including

owner, tenant, sub-tenant and occupier' on tax and 'surcharge'

proposed to be levied for commercial or non-residential user of

the properties. The tenants, sub-tenants and occupiers are

entitled to written notices. The provisions contain a detailed

procedure under which the tenants, sub-tenants or occupiers

pursuant to a public notice and written notice, are entitled to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 20

participate in the process of valuation and assessment of

consolidated rate by filing returns and objections. See section

181, 184 and 186 of the Act which read thus :-

"181. Submission of returns and inspection of

lands and buildings for purposes of

assessment. - (1) The Municipal Commissioner

may, with a view of enabling him to determine the

annual value of any land or building [in any ward or

part thereof] and the person primarily liable for the

payment of any consolidated rate on such land or

building, [by a public notice,] require the owner

or the occupier of such land or building or

portion thereof to furnish a return in such

form, within such period and in accordance with

such procedure as may be prescribed.

(2) The Municipal Commissioner may, [by a public

notice,] require the owner or the occupier of any

land or building [in any ward or part thereof] used

for public cinema shows or theatrical performances

or as a place of similar pulic recreation, amusement

or entertainment to furnish a return in such form,

within such period and in accordance with such

procedure as may be prescribed.

(3) Every owner or occupier [of any land or

building referred to in the public notice] under sub-

section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be bound to

comply with such notice and to furnish a return

with a declaration that the statement made therein

is correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

(4) [ * * * * * * * ]

(5) [*********** ]

(6) [ * * * * * * * ]

(7)

"184. Public notice and inspection of

assessment list.-(1) When the annual valuation

under sub-section (2) of section 179 or a general

revaluation under sub-section (1) of section 180 in

any ward of the Corporation or part thereof, as the

case may be, has been completed, the Municipal

Commissioner shall cause the respective valuation

to be entered in an assessment list in such form

and containing such particulars with respect to

each land or building as may be prescribed.

(2) When the assessment list has been prepared

the Municipal Commissioner shall give public

notice thereof and of the place where the list or a

copy thereof may be inspected, and every

person claiming to be the owner, lessee, sub-

lessee or occupier of any land or building

include in the list and any authorised agent of

such person shall be at liberty to inspect the list

and to take extracts therefrom free of charge.

(3) The Municipal Commissioner shall give public

notice of the place, time and date, not less than

one month after the preparation of the assessment

list as aforesaid when he will proceed to consider

the annual valuations of lands and buildings

entered in the assessment list, and in all cases in

which any land or building is for the first time

assessed, or the annual value of any land or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 20

building is increased, he shall also give

written notice thereof to the owner or to any

lessee, sub-lessee or occupier of such land or

building and shall also specify in the notice the

place, time and date, not less than one month

thereafter, when he will proceed to consider such

valuation.

(4) When a revision in the annual valuation of any

land or building has been made under sub-section

(2) of section 180, the Municipal Commissioner

shall cause the respective valuation to be entered

in the assessment list and shall give a written

notice thereof to the owner or to any lessee,

sub-lessee or occupier of such land or building,

and shall also specify in the notice the place, time

and date, not less than one month thereafter,

when he will proceed to consider such valuation".

"186. Objections against valuation of

assessment.- Subject to the provisions of section

181 or section 182, any objection to the annual

value of a land or building as entered in the

assessment list shall be made by the owner or the

person liable to pay the consolidated rate, in

writing, to the Municipal Commissioner before the

date fixed in the notice under Section 184 [or

section 185] and shall state in what respect the

annual value is disputed".

[Underlining for emphasis]

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits

that in the city of Calcutta, there are such large number of

multi-storeyed buildings that service of individual notice to

each tenant, sub-tenant as also on all the occupants of such

buildings and give them opportunity of hearing at every stage

would not only be a marathon exercise involving

insurmountable practical difficulties and bottlenecks but would

make the whole process highly cumbersome, if not, impossible

in finalising the assessment within a reasonable time. It would

also put the Corporation to such a colossal establishment

expenditure which may be more than the actual amount of tax

that might be levied and found recoverable.

Such argument cannot be accepted. The underlined

portion of the provisions of the Act is required to be followed

and it grants effective participation to tenants, sub-tenants and

occupants who, pursuant to public notice or written notices,

approach the competent authority by raising objections and

claim opportunity of hearing in the course of proceedings. We,

therefore, find that the provisions of the Act allow full and

effective participation to the tenants, sub-tenants or occupants

in the process of assessment of consolidated rate.

Taking into consideration, however, the practical

difficulties particularly concerning multi-storeyed buildings

occupied by several tenants, sub-tenants and occupants, a

mere non-issuance and/or service of public and written notices

to all concerned individuals who are 'persons primarily liable or

liable', would not be treated by concerned authorities and

courts as invalidating the consolidated rate determined and

apportioned on various persons regarding such building/

buildings unless a serious prejudice is found to have been

caused to the persons aggrieved.

Somewhat similar provisions in Bombay Provincial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 20

Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, were examined and similar

challenges made to them, on behalf of tenants and occupants,

were rejected by this Court in the case of Assistant General

Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation [1995 (4) SCC 696]. See

paragraph 14 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"We are inclined to hold that in the scheme of the

Municipal Corporations Act read with Section 10 of

the Bombay Rent Act, the tenant does possess the

requisite locus standi to file a complaint pursuant

to public notice issued under Rule 15(1) or

pursuant to special written notice issued under Rule

15(2) as well as to right to file an appeal an appeal

under section 406. This should be more so, if there

is an agreement between the landlord and tenant

whereunder the obligation to discharge and pay the

property taxes is cast upon the tenant. It is true

that this is a private arrangement between the

parties and cannot form the basis of a legal right

but it is certainly an additional factor conferring the

requisite locus standi upon the tenant. Even where

the Bombay Rent Act is not applicable to a

particular building, the existence and proof of such

an agreement would enable the tenant to claim the

requisite locus standi. Holding otherwise would be

grossly unjust to the tenant. While he is made

liable, statutorily or by private treaty, for the

enhancement in the property taxes, he is not being

allowed to question the same. It is true, as

contended by the learned counsel for the

Corporation, that no prudent owner of a building

will allow the assessment to be enhanced

unreasonably just to spite the tenant, it cannot at

the same time be said that the tenant has no right

to file an appeal against the assessment or

enhancement, as the case may be, when he is a

person directly affected by such

assessment/enhancement. There is yet another

circumstance: any person proposing to file an

appeal under Section 406 has to deposit the

disputed tax as contemplated by Section 406(2)(e)

as a condition for entertaining the appeal; since the

landlord can pass on the enhanced burden to the

tenant according to the Bombay Rent Act and also

where there is a stipulation between him and the

tenant where under the liability to pay the property

taxes is exclusively placed upon the tenant, the

landlord would not be minded to take the trouble of

filing the appeal since he would be obliged to

deposit the disputed tax; he may think - and

probably legitimately - why should he deposit the

disputed tax and file the appeal when the burden of

the said tax is not falling upon him. This is also a

relevant circumstance in favour of reading a right

(to object and appeal) in the tenant. At the same

time, it cannot be predicated that the special notice

contemplated by Rule 15(2) has necessarily to be

served upon the tenant. No such right can be

claimed by the tenant nor such an obligation to

cast upon the Corporation. The tenant has to be

vigilant. There will be a public notice under Rule

15(1) wherever an enhancement is proposed.

Even the special notice under Rule 15(2) may, in

the normal course, be served upon him because he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 20

is in occupation of the premises but that may or

may not happen. (In a given case, the landlord

may be residing in a portion of the same building;

there may be more than one tenant in the building

and so on.) Even if the special notice is not served

upon him, he has to file the complaint within the

time prescribed by the notices and the Rules".

Challenge to Section 195:

The next ground urged is that if the landlord does not

pay the consolidated rate or surcharge the same is made

recoverable under Section 195 from the tenants by attaching

rents payable by them. It is argued that in the event of any

dispute regarding the rent between the landlord and the

tenant, the tenant is helpless because the Corporation will

collect from the tenant what the landlord declares to be the

rent from the tenant.

This ground is also speculative. If there is dispute

about rent, the tenant is entitled to raise that dispute before

the competent authority in the course of assessment and also

get its adjudication through the competent Court. Merely

because there is a dispute regarding rent, the Municipal

authorities cannot in law be made to wait for finalising

assessment till the dispute of rent is decided by some other

forum. In the event of a dispute regarding rent, it is open to

the tenant to raise suitable objection before the competent

authority under the provisions of the Act for its decision in the

course of valuation and assessment of 'consolidated rate.'

Non-participation by Owner:

It is next urged that if the actual rent realised does not

suffer any change, the entire increase of tax based on market

valuation is to be borne by the tenant and the owner is not

affected at all. These circumstances are such that an owner,

since he is not affected by increasing valuation, may choose

not to attend the hearing at the time of assessment, as he

knows that he is entitled to receive the entire increase in the

property tax from the tenant or occupiers and his individual

liability based on actual rent remains unchanged.

The aforesaid ground also does not seem to be

acceptable. It is true that burden of tax based on valuation in

the assessment is to be borne by the tenant or occupier but as

we have examined the provisions, even though the landlord

remains inactive by not contesting the assessment proposed,

the tenant or occupier has to be vigilant and has right to

object to the same pursuant to the public and written notices.

The tenants or occupants who have to shoulder major portion

of the tax burden, therefore, have to be vigilant and raise

objections pursuant to public and written notices and contest

the assessments on valid grounds in their own interest.

Right of Appeal illusory:

The next ground urged is that the right of appeal so far

as the tenant, sub-tenant or occupant is concerned is illusory.

It is contended that the pre-condition of maintaining the appeal

is deposit of consolidated rate demanded for the property. The

provision of the Act make the tenant liable to pay only a

portion of tax leviable on him to the owner. The tenant

receives neither Bills nor demand notices. In such

circumstances, the right of appeal is available only to the

owner/lessor as the 'person primarily liable.' The tenant

although has to share the major burden of tax, is denied the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 20

right of appeal. Even though, he is occupying only a portion of

the building it is unreasonable to demand of him to deposit

whole consolidated rate for the entire building for maintaining

his appeal.

We have examined the provisions of the Act. We find

that the provisions do allow the right of appeal as and when

there is a demand of proportionate consolidated rate or

surcharge from tenants, sub-tenants or occupants. There is

great force in the submission made that where the tenant is

occupying only a portion of the building and his liability

towards 'consolidated rate' or 'surcharge' is proportionately

restricted to the portion of the building in his occupation, for

exercising right of appeal, to make it compulsory for him to

deposit the entire consolidated rate assessed and levied on the

whole building, is inequitable. The relevant provision contained

in Section 189 (5) and (6) read thus:

"(5) Any owner or person liable to payment of

consolidated rate may, if dissatisfied with the

determination of objection under section 188

appeal to the Tribunal:

Provided that such appeal shall be presented to the

tribunal within forty-five days from the date of

service of [a copy of the order] under section 188

and shall be accompanied by a copy of the said

order.

(6) No appeal under this section shall be

entertained unless the consolidated rate in respect

of any land or building for the period ending on the

date of presentation of the appeal on the valuation

determined under section 188 has been deposited

[in the office of the Corporation] and the appeal

shall abate unless such consolidated rate is

continued to be deposited till the appeal is finally

disposed of."

As we had examined the provisions, since the tenants,

sub-tenants or occupiers have to share the burden of tax to an

appreciable extent, right of appeal cannot be denied to them.

If the right of appeal is held to be available to them on

payment of the entire tax levied on the whole building even

though they occupy only a portion of it, the remedy of appeal

would be highly onerous and virtually denied.

In the aforesaid circumstances, on examination of

provisions of the Act and as reasonably construing Section

189(6) of the Act, we find that the 'right of appeal' as an

effective remedy has to be given to a tenant, sub-tenant or

occupant who is a 'person liable' with 'person primarily liable'

for payment of 'consolidated rate' and it would be available

only on payment of the 'consolidated rate' as apportioned as

his liability and held payable by him. Any other interpretation,

would frustrate the very object of providing right of appeal to

'person liable' with the 'person primarily liable' This is how the

provision has to be reasonably interpreted and read down.

The rule of "reading down" a provision of law is now

well recognised. It is a rule of harmonious construction in a

different name. It is resorted to smoothen the crudities or

ironing the creases found in a statute to make it workable. In

the garb of 'reading down', however, it is not open to read

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 20

words and expressions not found in it and thus venture into a

kind of judicial legislation. The rule of reading down is to be

used for the limited purpose of making a particular provision

workable and to bring it in harmony with other provisions of

the statute. It is to be used keeping in view the scheme of the

statute and to fulfil its purposes. See the following observations

of this Court in the case of BR Enterprises vs. State of UP

[1999(9) SCC 700]:-

"First attempt should be made by the courts to

uphold the charged provisions and not to invalidate

it merely because one of the possible interpretation

leads to such a result, howsoever attractive it may

be. Thus, where there are two possible

interpretations, one invalidating the law and the

other upholding, the latter should be adopted. For

this, the courts have been endeavouring,

sometimes to give restrictive or expansive meaning

keeping in view the nature of legislation, may be

beneficial, penal or fiscal etc. Cumulatively, it is to

sub-serve the object of the legislation. Old golden

rule is of respecting the wisdom of legislature, that

they are aware of the law and would never have

intended for an invalid legislation. This also keeps

courts within their track and checks individual zeal

of going wayward. Yet in spite of this, if the

impugned legislation cannot be saved the courts

shall not hesitate to strike it down. Similarly, for

upholding any provision, if it could be saved by

reading it down, it should be done, unless plain

words are so clear to be in defiance of the

Constitution. These interpretations spring out

because of concern of the courts to salvage a

legislation to achieve its objective and not to let it

fall merely because of a possible ingenious

interpretation. The words are not static but

dynamic. This infuses fertility in the field of

interpretation. This equally helps to save an Act

but also the cause of attack on the Act. Here the

courts have to play a cautious role of weeding out

the wild from the crop, of course, without infringing

the Constitution. For doing this, the courts have

taken help from the Preamble, Objects, the scheme

of the act, its historical background, the purpose

for enacting such a provision, the mischief, if any

which existed, which is sought to be eliminated.

The principle of reading down, however, will not be

available where the plain and literal meaning from

a bare reading of any impugned provisions clearly

shows that it confers arbitrary, uncanalised or

unbridled power."

On behalf of the Corporation learned counsel placed

heavy reliance on paragraph 16 of the Judgement of this Court

in Central Bank of India (supra). It is argued that comparable

provisions of Bombay Act were examined and contention was

rejected that right of appeal to tenants, sub-tenants or

occupiers on pre-deposit of tax for the entire property or

premises is inequitable and virtual denial of right of appeal.

We have carefully gone through the decision of this court

in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) which arose out of

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (for short

the "Bombay Act"). The provisions relevant on this aspect are

contained in Sections 194 to 196 of the Act and read as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 20

"194. Apportionment of liability for

consolidated rate on land or building when

the premises assessed are let or sublet.-(1) If

the annual valuation of any land or building

exceeds the amount calculated on the basis of the

rent of such land or building payable to the person

upon whom the consolidated rate on such land or

building is leviable under Section 193, such person

shall be entitled to receive from his tenant the

difference between the amount of the consolidated

rate on such land or building and the amount which

would be leviable if the consolidated rate on such

land or building were calculated on the basis of the

rent payable to him.

(2) If the annual valuation of any land or building

which is sublet exceeds the amount calculated on

the basis of rent of such land or building payable to

the tenant by his sub-tenant or to the sub-tenant

by the person holding under him, the tenant or the

sub-tenant shall be entitled to receive from his

sub-tenant or the person holding under him, as

the case may be, the difference between any sum

recovered under this Act from such tenant or sub-

tenant and the amount of consolidated rate on such

land or building which would be leviable if the

annual valuation of such land or building were

calculated on the basis of rent payable to the

tenant by his sub-tenant or the sub-tenant by the

person holding under him.

"195. Recovery of consolidated rate on lands

and buildings from occupiers.-(1) On the failure

to recover any sum due on account of consolidated

rate on any land or building from the person

primarily liable therefor under section 193, [the

Municipal Commissioner shall, notwithstanding

anything contained in the West Bengal Premises

Tenancy Act, 1956 or in any other law for the time

being in force, recover] from every occupier of

such land or building, by attachment of the rent

payable by such occupier, a portion of the total

sum due which bears, as nearly as may be, the

same proportion to that sum as the rent annually

payable by such occupier bears to the total amount

of rent annually payable in respect of the whole of

such land or building.

(2) An occupier, from whom any sum is recovered

under sub-section (1), shall be entitled to be

reimbursed by the person primarily liable for the

payment of such sum, and may, in addition to have

recourse to other remedies that may be open to

him, deduct the amount so recovered from the

amount of any rent becoming due from time to

time from him to such person.

"196. Payment of consolidated rate on lands

and buildings. - (1) Save as otherwise provided

in this Act, the consolidated rate on any land or

building under this Chapter shall be paid by the

person liable for the payment thereof in quarterly

instalments and, for the purposes of this section,

each quarter shall be deemed to commence on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 20

first day of April, first day of July, first day of

October, and first day of January, of a year.

(2) The Municipal Commissioner shall cause to be

presented to the person liable for payment of the

consolidated rate a comprehensive bill in respect of

such rate to be paid in quarterly instalments,

showing separately the amount of the consolidated

rate due against each quarter and the date on

which the consolidated rate for each quarter is due.

Such bill shall be sent by post under certificate of

posting or by courier agency to the person liable

for payment of the consolidated rate, not later than

the 31st day of May."

It is true that various provisions of Bombay Act and the

Act under consideration before us applicable to Calcutta, are

somewhat similar. However, some of the most out-standing

features of Calcutta Act are not to be found in the Bombay Act.

In the Act applicable to Calcutta which is for consideration

before us, the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier have to be

involved by Public notice and individual written notices in the

course of valuation and assessment of the "consolidated rate"

or tax. Pursuant to the aforesaid public and individual notices,

they have a right to object to the proposed valuation and

assessment. They can also submit returns in response to the

above notices. The annual value is determined on the basis of

actual rent and market rent and is apportioned between the

owner and lessor, as the person "primarily liable" and the

tenant, sub-tenant or occupier, who are described as "persons

liable." The provision of sub-section (6) of Section 178 creates

an obligation on the municipal Commissioner to supply

information, on payment of fee, to the person "primarily liable"

and to "persons liable" regarding the apportionment of the

"consolidated rate" or tax on the properties among the several

occupiers. The "consolidated rate" so determined for a

property is recoverable only from the "person primarily liable"

who is given a right of reimbursement from the other "persons

liable." The consolidated rate is also made recoverable from

the 'persons liable' by attaching their rents payable to the

"person primarily liable" and giving corresponding rights to the

parties to claim adjustment of the tax paid from the quantum

of rent.

The Act applicable to Calcutta also imposes a 'surcharge'

as part of "consolidated rate" or tax of which the whole burden

is on the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier who is putting the

premises to non-residential or commercial use. The burden of

this 'surcharge' as part of "consolidated rate" is only on the

person putting the premises to non-residential or commercial

use. The imposition of this surcharge for properties in use for

non-residential and commercial purposes with apportionment

of that liability only on persons using the property in the

manner aforesaid, is a special feature of the Act applicable to

Calcutta and which makes this provision as also other

provisions to a great extent different from the provisions of

Bombay Act which were considered and the right of appeal in

that case was held to be allowable only on full deposit of

property tax for the whole property or building which is treated

to be one unit for valuation and assessment of tax.

We have noticed the distinguishing features and the

scheme of the Act applicable to Calcutta before us for

interpretation and the Act applicable to Bombay. We have

resorted to a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 20

applicable to Calcutta. We have come to the conclusion that as

tenant, sub-tenant and occupants are "persons liable" with

owner or lessor being the 'persons primarily liable', the former

category of 'persons liable' have a right to prefer appeal

against proposed valuation and assessment of "consolidated

rate" by deposit of that portion of "consolidated rate" or

surcharge which is found leviable and payable by them. Such

portion of "consolidated rate" and 'surcharge' is separately

determined and ascertainable from the order of assessment

and the demand bills and notices for recovery, if any, issued to

the persons "primarily liable" or "persons liable." The decision

of this Court in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) on the

provisions of Bombay Act, therefore, in our opinion, is

distinguishable. In the case before us, the tenants, sub-tenants

and occupiers as "persons liable" have to be recognised as

aggrieved parties with independent right of appeal to them on

pre-deposit of portion of a "consolidated rate" or surcharge,

found leviable and recoverable from each of them.

Other Grievances:

Incidentally, a grievance was also raised that the tenants,

sub-tenants and occupiers even on a formal demand on

payment of fees, are not being supplied the necessary details of

tax and its apportionment for filing returns, raising objections

and filing appeals. We may only observe that there can be no

general direction for redressing such grievances. We have

found from the provisions, as construed by us, that they create

an obligation on the concerned authorities of the Corporation to

provide necessary information on assessment and

apportionment of tax between 'persons primarily liable' and

'persons liable.' If there is in a given case refusal on the part

of Corporation authorities to discharge their statutory liability in

the matter of furnishing requisite information to the persons

liable to pay the tax, the aggrieved parties have to take

recourse to the remedies provided in law for compelling

compliance of the provisions of the Act.

Challenge to Section 231:

The appellants have also challenged the applicability of

the provisions contained in Section 231 of the Act . it is

contended that Section 231 creates a legal fiction by which

''tax' is to be treated as a 'rent'. If the tax is treated as rent

with the right given to the landlord to recover it as rent, the

provisions of Tenancy Act would get attracted without their

being any mention of applicability of Tenancy Act to the

provisions of the Act under consideration. It is submitted that a

provision which deems 'tax' as 'rent' for the purpose of

recovery by the landlord for payment to the Corporation or for

his own reimbursement where he has already paid the whole

amount of tax, creates a situation whereby although the

apportionment and quantum of demand is disputed by the

tenant, he has to face proceedings for recovery of tax as 'rent'

and face the danger of eviction under the provisions of the

Tenancy Act.

It is submitted that the provisions of the Act under

consideration do not contain any guidelines to indicate as to

what extent the provisions of the Tenancy Act would be

attracted to portion of tax leviable on the tenant which is

fictionally treated as 'rent'.

We have to examine the provisions of Section 231 of the

Act in the light of the scheme of the Act. Section 231 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 20

Act reads thus:

"Mode of recovery - If any person primarily liable

to pay any consolidated rate on any land or

building and is entitled to recover any sum from an

occupier of such land or building, he shall have, for

recovery thereof, the same rights and remedies as

if such sum were rent payable to him by the person

from whom he is entitled to recover such sum."

We find that the machinery provisions for assessment

and recovery of tax basically involve the owner or the lessor

who is 'primarily liable' for the tax on property although in the

course of assessment and recovery of portion of tax from the

tenants, sub-tenants or occupants, their involvement is also

directed. It is with the purpose to make procedure of recovery

of tax simpler that the owner or the lessor is proceeded against

as the "person primarily liable." The owner or lessor of the

property is 'primarily' required to satisfy the demand towards

tax with right to recover it from the tenant, sub-tenant or the

occupant. If the landlord or the owner is obliged to make

payment of whole amount of tax inclusive of his own share and

share of the tenant, sub-tenant or the occupant, the owner or

lessor has to be conferred with power to recover the portion of

tax payable by the tenant, sub-tenant or occupant who is

actually enjoying the property and putting it to use for

commercial or non-residential purpose. The legislature has

taken note of the fact that a large number of properties in

Metropolitan city of Calcutta are in occupation of tenants, sub-

tenants or occupants on a comparatively small amount of rent

or lease money. In such situation to impose entire burden of

tax on the owner or lessor, would be inequitable, more so when

the tenancy law does not allow increase in rent beyond a

particular limit and the right of eviction of the landlord is

restricted to the grounds under the Tenancy Act. By the

impugned provisions of the Act, therefore, the legislature has

thought of apportioning the tax burden between owner or the

lessor as one party and the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier as

the other parties. The whole amount of tax is recoverable from

the lessor and may also be recovered from the tenant or sub-

tenant through attachment of the rent. In case where the

lessor or landlord has paid the whole tax including the portion

of tax payable by the tenant or sub-tenant, the landlord has to

be equipped with power to get himself reimbursed by recovery

of the portion of tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant.

Section 231 of the Act, therefore, creates fiction that the 'tax'

apportioned on the tenant would be treated as 'rent' and would

be recoverable as such. The word 'rent' has not been defined

in the tenancy law and this court has taken note of this legal

position in the case of Puspa Sen Gupta vs. Susma Ghose

[1990 (2) SCC 651] which arose out of the provisions of

Tenancy Act applicable to West Bengal. Rent is a compendious

expression which may include lease money with service

charges for water, electricity and other taxes leviable on the

tenanted premises.

The provisions of the Tenancy Act merely enable the

landlord to make a demand of arrears of rent and in default of

the payment of the same sue the tenant for recovery of rent or

eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent despite demand.

The tenant can get protection against eviction on the ground

of arrears of rent only if he makes requisite deposit of the

arrears in the manner laid down in the provisions of the

Tenancy Act. A provision to fictionally treat 'tax' as 'rent' is

necessitated because in the absence of such a fiction in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 20

Section 231 of the Act, the landlord would be compelled to

pay the whole amount of tax which is recoverable from him

under the Act and would be left to an expensive and

cumbersome remedy of filing a civil suit for recovery of such

tax paid on behalf of the tenant, sub-tenant or occupant. Such

a fiction is required to be incorporated under Section 231 of

the Act because a private party cannot recover tax. If a lessor

is obliged to pay a portion of tax leviable on the tenant, the

landlord can recover the same not as 'tax' but only as part of

'rent.' The fiction created by the legislation in Section 231 to

treat 'tax' as 'rent' has to be taken to its logical conclusion. The

Act under consideration and the Tenancy Act both are State

Legislations. No question arises of legislative incompetence.

There does not appear any inter se conflict between the two

Acts. Both have to be read and applied harmoniously to

achieve the legislative intent in the two enactments. The

contention based on Section 231 of the Act, therefore, also

does not commend to us and is rejected.

Disproportionate Tax Liability:

In the course of hearing some calculation charts for

illustration were placed before us to demonstrate that tax

structure under Section 171 has been made in such a manner

that although a tenant may be occupying a small portion of

rented premises with normal rent but on valuation in relation to

the entire building fetching rent exceeding Rs.18,000/- for the

purpose of determination of tax, the resultant liability works

out higher on the tenant and much lower on the landlord

because latter's liability is restricted to valuation based on

actual rent from the premises. It is argued that such a result,

based on tax structure with a much higher burden on the

tenant compared to the landlord being the 'person primarily

liable' for payment of tax, is inequitable and unjust. It is also

against the concept of imposition of property tax on owners of

properties in the local area.

We have already taken note of the stand of the

Corporation that premises i.e. lands and buildings in

metropolitan town of Calcutta are mostly occupied on meagre

rents from the landlords, yet, in those tenanted premises

commercial and non-residential activities are going on a scale

which, requires more and more civic amenities to be provided

by the Corporation. Since the landlords are getting only small

rents and the occupants are actually putting the premises to

more beneficial use sometimes generating huge incomes, a

just tax structure should put lesser burden of tax on the

landlord than on the tenants who are in actual occupation. The

grievance, therefore, raised that the tax burden is much higher

on the tenants, sub-tenants or occupants than on landlords,

according to us, is not legitimate and is no ground to assail the

impugned provision.

Discriminatory treatment of rented premises governed

by West Bengal [Tenancy] Act and others:

One additional ground raised on behalf of the appellants

is that provisions of the Tenancy Act are not attracted to all

tenanted properties and only properties of which rent is less

than Rs.3,000/- per month are covered by Tenancy Act. On

the above legal position the contention advanced is the rented

premises for which the Tenancy Act is applicable, property tax

can be included in "Fair rent" as defined under the Tenancy Act

but to accommodations and premises not covered by Tenancy

Act, Property tax is not included in rent and there is no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 20

obligation on such landlords occupying tenanted premises on

rent which is more than Rs.3,000/- per month, to pay property

tax directly or through the landlord in accordance with the

Tenancy Act. It is, thus, contended that the provisions of the

Act create a discriminatory situation between tenants paying

less than Rs.3,000/- per month rent and covered by Tenancy

Act and tenants paying more than Rs.3,000/- per month rent

and falling out side the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

We have examined the scheme of the Act and we find

that in apportioning the burden of tax on landlord and tenant a

uniform scheme or tax structure has been evolved under the

Act on the basis of actual and notional rental value of the

premises. The liability of the landlord towards tax is limited to

the valuation based on actual rent received and the

assessment made of the tax based on letting value of the

premises is the liability of the tenant/sub-tenant or occupier.

Merely because Tenancy Act is attracted to accommodations

with rent less than Rs.3,000/- per month and not to other

accommodations having higher rent, does not create any dis-

similar situation in application of the Act to various categories

of tenants paying rent more or less than Rs.3,000/-. The

portion of tax liable to be paid by the occupant or tenant is not

directly recovered by the Corporation from them but is

recoverable through the landlord and the landlord has been

given right of reimbursement by demanding it from the tenant,

sub-tenant or the occupant. For recovering such portion the

tax payable by the tenant, sub-tenant or occupant, which has

been paid by the landlord, is deemed to be "rent" only for the

limited purpose of its recovery. The modes of recovery are by

a demand notice under the Tenancy Act and if necessary by

filing an eviction suit. Resort to remedy before the regular

court is also not prohibited. On this aspect of apportionment of

tax and mode of recovery of tax, the Act does not make any

discrimination between tenants of premises covered by the

Tenancy Act and others not covered by the said Act.

Conclusion:

As a result of the discussion aforesaid, we find no vice

in any of the provisions of the Act although we have considered

it necessary to interpret the provisions harmoniously for better

application of the provisions of the Act and the Tenancy Act.

The various legal provisions assailed before us have been

interpreted by us and our conclusions are as under:

(1) In view of specific provisions of the Act and as

the provisions of the Act impose burden of tax to

an appreciable extent on the tenant, sub-tenant

and occupiers and the tax is liable to be recovered

from them through the landlord or directly by

attachment of rent or other coercive modes, the

tenants, sub-tenants and occupants are entitled to

an opportunity to participate in the process of

valuation and assessment. They are entitled,

therefore to written notices apart from public notice

for assessment, revision of assessment or

amendment of assessment of the 'consolidated

rate' or tax. It is also made clear that pursuant to

the public notice or written notice, the returns

submitted by the tenant, sub-tenant or occupier,

with regard to determination of annual value shall

be considered by the corporation. The same

procedure would be followed in revision of the

annual valuation.

(2) It is further made clear that non-issuance of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 20

public notice or notices and /or non-service of

written notices to the 'persons primarily liable'

would not necessarily invalidate the proceedings of

assessment or reassessment or amendment of the

valuation for consolidated rate unless it is

established by the party aggrieved that a serious

prejudice was caused to it for want of notice.

(3) Under the provisions of the Act since the

tenant, sub-tenant or occupier have to share

burden of an appreciable portion of "consolidated

rate" exclusive or inclusive of 'surcharge' in relation

to properties used for non-residential and

commercial purposes and as the Act provides for

opportunity of participation to them pursuant to a

public notice and written notice in assessment and

reassessment of tax, they have a right of appeal

provided under the Act. It is made clear that

tenant, sub-tenant and occupiers held liable for

payment of a portion of tax have a right of appeal

on pre-deposit of portion of tax levied and made

recoverable from them.

(4) It is also made clear that to enable the tenant,

sub-tenant or occupier as 'person liable' to pay

'consolidated rate' they would have a right to

obtain necessary information on payment of

requisite fee in accordance with Section 178 of the

Act and Corporation authorities are legally bound to

furnish such requisite information.

In the result of the detailed discussion aforesaid, we

maintain the judgment of the High Court with the clarification

and observations made above. This is further clarified that the

legal position explained by us in this judgment would have

application to pending and future proceedings but not to

proceedings under the relevant chapter of the Act which have

already been concluded.

Consequently, the appeals fail and are dismissed. We

leave the parties to bear their own costs.