R. S. A. No. 393 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 393 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 23, 2010 Municipal Corporation, Bathinda .... Appellant Vs. Parma Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Municipal Corporation, Bathinda has filed the instant second appeal. Respondents filed suit against the defendant- appellant challenging notice dated 21.02.2005 issued by the defendant for recovery of arrears of house tax (with interest and cost) since 1981-82 till 2004-05. However, in view of decision in earlier suit, whereby earlier similar notice dated 06.03.1991 relating to demand of house tax for the period from 1981-82 till 1990-91 was challenged, the defendant restricted its claim to house tax from 1988-89 till 2004-05 because the defendant had been restrained in the previous suit from recovering house tax prior to R. S. A. No. 393 of 2009 2 1988-89 being time barred. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2008, partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit and held that defendant is entitled to recover arrears of house tax from 2002-03 to 2004-05 because payment of house tax for the earlier period was held time barred. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Following substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal :- “Whether the finding of the courts below, that payment of house tax for period prior to 2002-03 is barred by limitation, is sustainable in law ?” Learned counsel for the appellant, relying on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Bhatinda vs. Jaswant Rai and others reported as (1990-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 402, contended that arrears of house tax become a charge on the immovable property, to which the house tax relates and therefore, limitation period gets enlarged. It was pointed out that defendant had R. S. A. No. 393 of 2009 3 served demand notice dated 25.08.2004 (Ex.D-11) on the plaintiffs under Section 137 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (in short – the Act) and therefore, the arrears of house tax became a charge on the property and the limitation period got enlarged. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that demand notice dated 21.02.2005 was served on the plaintiffs and the courts below have held the arrears of house tax for three years preceding the date of notice to be recoverable and within limitation and arrears of house tax prior thereto have been rightly held to be barred by limitation. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Courts below have found that demand notice dated 25.08.2004 (Ex.D-11) was also served on the plaintiffs. In view thereof, house tax for 2001-02 was also within limitation being within period of preceding three years and after service of notice dated 25.08.2004, the said amount became charge on property and limitation period got enlarged. Consequently, the appellant is also entitled to recover the house tax for 2001-02 from the plaintiffs, in addition to the subsequent three years, as allowed by the courts below. However, the appellant is not entitled to recover arrears of house tax for the period prior to 2001-02. Substantial question of law framed herein above is answered accordingly. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant second appeal is allowed partly and judgment and decree of the courts below are R. S. A. No. 393 of 2009 4 modified and the defendant is also held entitled to recover arrears of house tax for 2001-02 from the plaintiffs in addition to the house tax for the subsequent three years as allowed by the courts below. However, the defendant is not entitled to recover arrears of house tax for the period prior to 2001-02. July 23, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE