http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHAMBHU NATH  PALIT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/01/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR  768            1978 SCR  (2) 606  1978 SCC  (1) 620

ACT: Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, S. 202--Whether the provisions of  Thika Tenancy Act a bar to the recovery from the  tenant by  a  landlord, of the rates levied and  collected  by  the Corporation as an owner u/s 202 of the Municipal Act.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioners challenged the levy and collection  of  the municipal tax from them as landlords in respect of the  huts constructed  and  occupied  by their tenants  on  the  lands leased  to the latter.  The Calcutta High Court, taking  the view  that  S. 202 of the Municipal Act, 1951  provided  for collection  by the owner of the land of so much of the  rate as is attributable to the hut which belongs not to the owner but  to the tenant, directed, that in regard to each bit  of land and hut thereon, there will be particularisation of the assessment separately on the consolidated. valuation. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD  1. S. 202 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 is  more or  less a self-contained code with the result that what  is leviable  under that provision cannot be prejudiced  by  the existence of any other provision. 2.The  Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the way of  the petitioner in recovering what is permissible u/s 202 of  the Municipal Act.  Thika Tenancy Act deals with rents while  s. 202 deals with rates.  The special provision must prevail so far as the rates are concerned. 3.A  special  provision  dealing with  owners  of  bastis cannot be challenged as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, when their position is protected  by s. 202 of the Municipal Act.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  :  Special  Leave   Petition (Civil) No. 5097 of 1977. From  the Judgment and Order dated 24-9-75 of  the  Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 154 of 1971. N. R. Chatterjee and Amlan Ghose for the Petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have heard counsel Mr. Chatterjee on two

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

grievances  of  his  clinet.  According  to  him,  the  land belongs  to the petitioner, the huts belong to his  tenants, but the municipal assessment is based upon valuation of  the land and the huts together.  This grieVance is taken care of in two ways.  The High Court had directed that in regard  to each  bit  of land and hut thereon, there  win  be  particu- larisation of the assessment separately on the  consolidated valuation.   Secondly. there is also provision in s. 202  of the Calcutta, Municipal  607 Act,  1951  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ’Act’)  for collection  by the owner of the land of so such of the  rate as is attributable to the hut which belongs not to the owner but  to the tenant, if we may put it loosely that way.   The details  have  been  spelt out in s. 202 of  the  Act.   ’We consider s. 202 as more or less a self-contained code  with the result that what is leviable under that provision cannot be prejudiced by the existence of any other provision. Counsel’s  second  grievence is that the provisions  of  the Thika  Tenancy  Act  stand  in the  way  of  the  petitioner collecting from his tenant any amount in excess of the  rent fixed  under the Act.  This grievance also has no  substance because the Thika Tenancy Act deals with rents while s.  202 deals with rates.  The special provision must prevail so far as  the rates are, concerned and the petitioner is not  pre- vented from collecting sums due under s. 202 in the shape of rates.   The Thika Tenancy Act does not come in the  way  of the  petitioner in recovering what is permissible  under  s. 202 of the Act. Nor are we able to appreciate counsel’s contention that  Art 14  of the Constitution is violated.  Bastis-horrid  hovels, which  blot the human-scape of India, still survive  in  our socialistic pattern-stand as a separate category although as an ugly but inescapable social reality.  It is true that the most  unfortunate  section of the society in  Calcutta  City dwell in these bastis except those who, unable to afford the luxury  even  of these bastis, have to seek shelter  on  the pavements.   So far as Art. 14 is concerned, the bastis  and the  dwellers of bastis stand in a tearfully separate  class by themselves and a special provision dealing with owners of bastis cannot be challenged as discriminatory. If ever there were  any discrimination it is against the human  condition, rather  the inhuman condition, of these whom dire  necessity drives to  occupy these hutments.  So far as the owners  are concerned  their position is protected by s. 202  and  there cannot be any complaint except abstract,theoretical and imaginary  ones, that there is discrimination against  them. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. S.R.                            Petition dismissed. 608