Guntur Municipal Council Vs. Guntur
Town Rate Payers' Association  INSC 197 (18 September 1970)
18/09/1970 GROVER, A.N.
CITATION: 1971 AIR 353 1971 SCR (2) 423 1970
SCC (2) 803
D 1974 SC1779 (20) RF 1977 SC 308 (4,8) R
1980 SC 541 (5,6,8,9,10)
Madras District Municipalities Act (5 of
1920), s. 82(2) Rent at which buildings may reasonably be expected to be let
from month to month-How determined.
The appellant Municipal Council effected (a
general revision of the rental values of houses and buildings in the
municipality, under s. 82(2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920,
for the purpose of assessment of tax.
On the question whether the appellant was
bound to make the assessment in the light of the provisions of the Rent Control
HELD:(a) Under s. 82(2) the test is what rent
the premises can lawfully fetch if let out to a 'hypothetical tenant. The
municipality is not free to assess any arbitrary annual value but has to look
to and is bound by the fair or the standard rent which would be payable for
particular premises under the Rent Control Act in force during the year of
assessments [425 A-B] Corporation of Calcutta v. Sm. Padma Debi & Ors
 3 S.C.R. 49, followed.
(b)No distinction can be made between
buildings the fair rent of which has been actually fixed by the Controller and
those in respect of which no such rent has been fixed.
Where the Controller has not fixed the fair
rent the municipal authorities will have to arrive at the fair rent according
to the principles laid down in S. 4 of the Rent Control Act for the
determination of fair rent. [425 F-G] (c)Under the rules contained in the
Fourth Schedule to the Municipalities Act. the assessment books have to be
revised once in every 5 years and the quinquennial assessment thus made enures
for that period. But a procedure has been prescribed in the rules for changing
the assessment whenever a case is made out for doing so. Therefore, the
assessment of valuation for the purpose of tax must be ' made in accordance
with and in the light of the provisions of the Rent Control Act which would be
in force during the period of assessment.[426 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 1650 to 1652 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and decree dated December 3, 1965 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second
Appeals Nos. 367, 368 and 369 of 1962.
B. V. Subrahmanyam and A. V. Rangam, for the
appellant (in all the appeals).
M.Natesan and K. Jayaram, for the respondents
(in all the appeals).
424 The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by Grover, J. These appeals have been brought by special leave from a judgment
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Three suits, namely, O.S. Nos. 222, 223 and 4
66 of 1960 were filed in the Guntur court in which the relief claimed was for a
declaration that the general revision of the rental values of the houses and
buildings effected by the Guntur Municipality in the year 1960 for the purpose
of assessment of tax was ultra vires ,and illegal and for a consequential
relief of a permanent injunction restraining the municipality from acting on
the special notices issued to the tax payers.
Section 81 of the Madras District
Municipalites Act 1920, hereinafter called the "Municipalities Act" gives
the description and classes of property tax and other taxes leviable by the
municipality. Section 82 gives the method of assessment. It is provided by
sub-s. (2) of that section that the annual value of lands and buildings shall
be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected
to be let from month to month or from year to year less certain deductions. The
District Munsif by a common judgment delivered in the three suits held that the
annual value had to be computed in the context of the rent that was payable
under the Rent Control legislation. The suits were decreed and a declaration
was granted that the general revision made by the Guntur Municipality in 1960
by increasing the rental value of houses to more than the rental value which
prevailed on the dates provided in the Rent Control Acts in force prior to 1960
was ultra vires and illegal and permanent injunctions were granted restraining
the municipality from acting upon the special demand notices issued to the
rate-payers and from collecting the enhanced tax. Appeals were filed and the
first appellate court substantially upheld the judgment of the trial court
though certain modifications were made in the decrees passed by that, court.
Appeals were taken to the High Court but the same were dismissed.
The only point which we are called upon to
decide is whether before the fixation of a fair rent of any premises the
municipality was bound to make assessment in the light of the provisions
contained in the Rent Acts. A subsidiary question has also arisen whether the
courts below were justified in referring to and passing the decrees keeping in
view the Rent Acts which were in force prior to the enactment of the Andhra
Pradesh Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 hereafter called
the "Act" Now S. 82(2) of the Municipalities Act, as stated before,
makes Provision for the fixation- of annual value according to the rent' at
which lands and buildings may reasonably be expected to be 425 let from month
to month or from year to year less the specified deduction. The test
essentially is what rent the premises can lawfully fetch if let out to a
hypothetical tenant. The municipality is thus not free to assess any arbitrary
annual value and has to look to, and is bound by the fair or the standard rent
which. would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent Act in force
during the year of assessment. In The Corporation of ,,Calcutta v. Sm.
Padma Debi & Ors. (1) it was held that on
a fair reading of the express provisions of S. 127 (a) of the Calcutta
Municipal Act 1923 the annual rent could not be fixed higher than the standard
rent under the Rent Control Act. There them Rent Control Act of 1950 came into
force before the assessment was finally determined and it was observed that the
Corporation had no power to fix the annual ',valuation of the premises higher
than the standard rent under that Act. The learned counsel for the appellant
has not made any attempt nor indeed he could do so to contest the above view.
What has been stressed _by him is that s. 7
of the Act makes it clear that it is only after the fixation of the fair rent
of a building that the landlord is debarred from claiming or receiving the
payment of any amount ,in excess of such fair rent. It is urged that so long as
the fair rent of a building or prenuses is not fixed the assessment of
valuation a municipality need not be limited or governed by the, measure provided
by the provisions of the Act, for determination of fair rent. Logically such
buildings or premises as are not let out to a tenant and are in the self
occupation of the landlords would also fall within the same principle if no
fair rent has even been fixed in respect of them.
We are unable to agree that on the language
of s. 82(2) of the Municipalities Act any distinction can be made between
buildings the fair rent of which has been actually fixed by the Controller and
those, in respect of which no such rent has been fixed. It is perfectly clear
that the landlord cannot lawfully expect to get more rent than the fair rent
which is payable in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act. The
assessment of valuation must take into account the measure of fair rent as
determinable under the Act. It may be that where the Controller has not fixed
the fair rent the municipal authorities will have to arrive at their own figure
of fair rent but that can be done without any difficulty by keeping in view the
principles laid down in s. 4 of the Act for determination of fair rent. This
would of course be with regard to the assessment of valuation for the period
subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. For the prior period it would
be the Rent Act in force during the year of assessment in the light (1) 
3 S. C. R. 49.
426 of the provisions of which the figure of
the fair rent would have to be determined and assessment made accordingly.
There is a good deal of confusion in the
judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court with regard to the
Rent Acts the provisions of which would have to be kept in view for the
assessment of valuation for the purpose of S.82 (2) of the Municipalities Act.
The decrees which have been granted suffer from the same infirmity. It has been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to the
rules contained in the fourth schedule to the Municipalities Act the I
assessment books have to be revised once in every five years and the
quinquennial assessment thus made enures for that period. But it appears from
the rules that a procedure has been prescribed for changing the assessment
whenever a case is made out for doing so. We are not concerned with the
procedural difficulties which may be experienced; we have to declare what the
law is and as appears to be well settled. the assessment of valuation for the
purpose of tax must be made in accordance with and in the light of the
provisions of the Rent Act which would be in force during the period of
In the result the decrees which 'have been
granted are hereby modified by declaring that the general revision made by the
Guntur Municipality by increasing the rental valuation of houses and buildings
beyond the fair rent determinable under the Rent Act in force for the period of
assessment shall be illegal and ultra vires and a permanent injunction shall
issue restraining the municipality from realizing any amount in excess of such
tax which may be found due on the valuation fixed according to the principles
laid down in our judgment. In view of the entire circumstances the parties are
left to bear their own costs in this Court.