RSA No. 2373 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2373 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2011. Surjit Singh .......Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering `. 41472/- towards the arrears of house tax. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner of the property bearing No. B-III 428. The ground floor, Ist floor, second floor and third floor had been rented out to Shri Krishan at the monthly rent of ` 400/- p.m. with effect from 1.9.1996. Prior to this, the property had been let out to another tenant at the monthly rent of ` 40/- vide rent note dated 10.2.1979. The plaintiff raised additional construction over the suit property. A notice had been served by the defendants for realisation of house tax. Plaintiff had filed objections before the corporation but he had not been given any opportunity of being RSA No. 2373 of 2009 (O&M) -2- heard before disposal of the objections, filed by him. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit property was a three storeyed building and was being used for commercial purpose. Plaintiff was owner of the said property. In the year 1997-98, the property was re-assessed for the purpose of house tax. A notice was served on the plaintiff under Section 103 of the Act. Plaintiff had filed his objections and thereafter the assessment order was passed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether jurisdiction of court is barred under section 149 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act? OPD 3. Whether the suit against defendant No.2 is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am RSA No. 2373 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff by way of the present suit had challenged the recovery of house tax being effected by the corporation from him. The case of the defendants was that plaintiff had made a statement on 20.9.2001 duly signed by him that he agrees to assessment of 2400 square feet area for house tax at the rate of ` 2/- per square feet. On the basis of the said statement, assessment order was passed. The cross examination of the plaintiff, as reproduced in para 7 of the judgment of the trial court reads as under: “ I have seen the order dated 20.09.1991 passed by the officer of the M.C. Ludhiana dated 20.09.2001 which is true and correct. The lines encircled in Ex.D21 by black ink pen were written in my hand. Again said the portion encircled in blue ink was written by my own hand on Ex.D2.” Thus, the plaintiff had given his consent qua assessment of house tax by the corporation. Plaintiff had filed his objections and had been afforded an hearing before passing of the order. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly held that the plea taken by the plaintiff that he had not been heard was liable to be rejected. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 11, 2011 Gurpreet