Hima Kohli, J.@mdashThe present petition is filed by petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the Assessment Order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector, MCD in respect of property bearing No.1630-XII, Sohan Ganj, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi for the Assessment Year 1991-92 and the impugned bill dated 26.4.2001 for a sum of Rs. 2,59,442/- raised on him towards the property tax bill for the Assessment Year 2000-01. By virtue of the impugned order dated 25.4.2001, an amended order was passed by the respondent/MCD u/s 176 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 fixing the rateable value of the property as Rs. 86,360/- w.e.f. 1.4.1994. The aforesaid order came to be passed in view of an application filed by the petitioner/assessee on 28.3.2000 praying inter alia that the ex-parte Assessment Order passed in respect of the subject premises, may be rectified w.e.f. 1.4.1991. It was further stated by the petitioner in his application that the property tax in respect of the subject premises be calculated on the basis of the site report dated 28.3.2001 and the assessment order be rectified accordingly.
2. As per the impugned order, upon inspection of the subject premises, in the year 1991-92, it had transpired that an additional construction of 4161 sq.ft. had been carried out in the built up structure of the premises alleged to be the first letting. In respect thereto, the petitioner/assessee had stated in his application dated 30.10.1999 submitted to the respondent/MCD that the tenants had undertaken the said unauthorized construction and therefore property tax may not be imposed on him as they were in illegal possession of the said additional construction. It is further noted in the impugned order that as per the site report dated 28.3.2001, there is an old construction in the subject premises, which is in possession of the tenants and some portion is self-occupied and further that one Sh. Vinod Kumar, who is stated to be in occupation of a part of the subject premises on the ground floor, did not permit inspection of the area occupied by him and he stated that he is a relative of Mr. Vijay Kumar & Mr. Girdhar, but not a tenant. According to the Joint Assessor and Collector, as per Form-A of the years 1991-92, first tenancy was shown as 4161 sq.ft. and the rent was assessed at Rs. 2.70 per sq.ft. p.m. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the tax of the property was assessed at Rs. 2/- per. sq.ft., ie., 4161x2= Rs. 8,322/- or Rs. 99,864/-. Upon giving a rebate of 10%, the rateable value was fixed at Rs. 91,390/- assessed from 1.4.1991. Further, under the amended Bye-laws 1994, the rateable value was reduced from Rs. 91,390/- to Rs. 86,360/- w.e.f. 1.4.1994.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the Mr. Vinod petitioner is not the owner of the additional area that has been constructed on the ground floor by some trespassers, and that the same has been constructed by them from their own funds and without obtaining the prior consent of the petitioner. He further states that the additional constructed area has not yet been dismantled by the petitioner, as possession thereof remains with the aforesaid trespassers against whom the petitioner has filed legal proceedings. It is stated that Mr.Vinod Kumar, who is in occupation of the additional construction on the ground floor, has been held to be a trespasser in the civil proceedings pursuant to which the petitioner has filed execution proceedings for implementation of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, which is pending.
4. The aforesaid ground cannot be available to the petitioner to dispute the impugned assessment order inasmuch as the said order was passed on the basis of the actual construction existing at the subject premises. It is a different matter that the petitioner could lodge a claim against the unlawful occupant for recovery of the excess amount that he shall have to pay to the respondent/MCD on account of the additional property tax calculated by the MCD by taking into consideration the aforesaid unauthorized additional construction. It may further be noted that although it is argued by learned counsel that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondent/MCD the fact that the additional construction on the ground floor of the subject premises had not been put to commercial use w.e.f. 1992, there is no document placed on record by the petitioner to evidence any such written intimation having been communicated to the respondent/MCD for it to have acted upon the same and consequently reduced the property tax by treating the additional construction in question to be residential in nature. As regards the order dated 28.8.1992 passed by the DCP(Licensing), Delhi Police and placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P-3, wherein, the licence to Mr. Vijay Kumar to run the printing press from the subject premises had been withdrawn, with a copy forwarded to the Zonal Officer, Civil Lines Zone, 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi, the aforesaid intimation of cancellation of licence in favour of Mr. Vijay Kumar, cannot be treated as an intimation by the petitioner to the respondent/MCD that misuser of the premises in question had ceased from the date of passing of the said order as that date would certainly be a subsequent date, which has admittedly not been intimated by the petitioner to the respondent/MCD. Nor has any document been placed by the petitioner on record, evidencing such an intimation.
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
