The Appellate Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal. It held that a judgment setting aside a property tax demand notice against a tenant was correct, as occupiers are not liable for arrears exceeding one year under the Act.
The appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
:: HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH [1 9 TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
Present:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.M.S.A.No.21 of 2002
Between:
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division
…Appellant
And:
Ramachander D.Hindujal @ Ramesh Kumar
… Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.M.S.A.No.21 of 2002
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.1997 passed in M.A.No.91 of 1996 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the appeal filed by the respondent herein challenging the demand notice dated 06.03.1996 issued by the appellant-Corporation demanding payment of arrears of property tax to a tune of Rs.15,336.90, was allowed setting aside the said demand notice.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation. None appears for the respondent. Perused the records.
3. It is not disputed that the respondent herein was only a tenant of the premises bearing No.5-1-908/55 & 56 on a monthly rent of Rs.136/- having obtained the same on lease from Bhagyanagar Constructions Private Limited. The appellantCorporation issued demand notice dated 06.03.1996 demanding the respondent-occupier to pay arrears of rents in a sum of Rs.15,336.90.
4. Sub-section (3) of Section 276 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act stipulates that arrears of tax cannot be demanded from the occupier for the period extending over one year. Admittedly, the respondent herein was only a tenant but not the owner of the building and he has already paid one year tax. The learned Chief Judge, has therefore, rightly held that the respondent herein is not liable to pay the arrears of tax as demanded and therefore, set aside the demand notice dated 06.03.1996. The said judgment, does not, therefore, call for any interference in this appeal. The appellant-Corporation is however,
at liberty to recover the arrears of tax, if any, from the owner of the building.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.02.2010 bss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the setting aside of a demand notice for arrears of property tax from a tenant be admitted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division
Ramachander D.Hindujal @ Ramesh Kumar
G.V.Seethapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
