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The repealed Act i.e. Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951  levied equal tax on owner and occupier of the lands and  buildings within the municipal area.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.