R.S.A No. 555 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 555 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : May 06, 2010 Smt Savitri Devi, ...... Appellant (s) v. Municipal Council, Narnaul & another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the house tax. Both the Courts have found that the appellant was the owner of the suit property which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.16,000/- and on the said rental value, tax of Rs.21,000/- per year was exigible. The case of the appellant was that earlier the property in dispute was shown in the name of her son and notice was issued in his name but subsequently tax was sought to be recovered from her. Both the Courts found that the son was the R.S.A No. 555 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: power of attorney of the appellant and that the appellant had not filed any appeal against the assessment of tax. Consequently, holding that no prejudice was caused to the appellant, the suit was dismissed. The following questions have been proposed in this appeal :- “ 1) Whether both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence and the law properly ? 2) Whether Section 80 of the Municipal Act, 1973 is mandatory ? 3) Whether the respondents are bound to take objections before purposing the house tax ? 4) Whether the respondents are bound to decide the representation of the appellant ?” In view of the findings arrived at by both the Courts below, questions No.2, 3 and 4 do not arise. It has not been shown as to how the house tax has been wrongly calculated. Question No.1 is a general question and needs no answer. Resultantly, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 06, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 555 of 2010 (O&M) ::3::