Case: Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria &amp; Another

pay the property tax then the defendant might not be able to carry out its duty. The plaintiffs have also been unable to show that they would suffer irreparable injury if an injunction is not granted to them. If they ultimately prove that they are not liable to pay full amount demanded by the defendant as property tax then the plaintiffs could compel the defendant either to refund the amount realised in excess or to adjust the amount recovered in excess towards property tax for future years. The plaintiffs do not suffer irreparable injury if they are not granted the temporary injunction."5. The High Court, while agreeing with the view of the Appellate Court that the agreeing with the view of the Appellate Court that the balance of convenience was in favour of discharging the interim injunction, held that, as there was a prima facie case that the assessment had been erroneously made, the principles of assessment applicable to such cases had been already laid down by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dewan Daulat Ram Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, ILR (1973) 1 Delhi 363. He observed :"One of the principles laid down by the Full Bench decision is that where premises were never let at any time, annual value be fixed in accordance with Section 6(I) (A) (2) (b) or Section 6 (1) (B) (2) (b) by ascertaining market value of land and reasonable cost of construction. The facts noticed above, but missed by the Courts below, prima facie establish that the property was never let out; the prima facie materials which are available, inclusive of what the D. M.C. itself had conceded, show the plaintiffs were occupying the property for their own use. the plaintiffs case therefore, prima facie, falls within the above principle. Failure to perceive the above had resulted in the Courts below declining to exercise jurisdiction vested in them in the manner it should have been exercised".6. Once, the learned Judge interfered and granted the interim injunction prayed for by the plaintiff.7. Mr. F. S. Nariman appearing for the appellant Corporation, points out that Dewan Daulat Ram Kapurs case ILR (1937) 1 Delhi 363 (supra ) was one where premises had been let, but, in the case before us, it was a matter of admission by both sides that the premises had never been let out to a tenant. Section 6(1) (A) (2) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control act relates to cases where standard rent has to be fixed of residential premises let out at any time on or after 2nd June, 1944. The Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Dewan Daulat Ram Kapurs case (supra) was that it was not incumbent on the Corporation to ascertain the hypothetical standard rent of premises in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act in order to fix the annual value or rateable value where premises had been let but no. standard rent had been fixed and assessment was sought to be made on the basis of agreed rent. It was also decided there that in cases before the High Court on that occasion, reasonable cost of construction as well as the market price of land had to be taken into account in assessing the property tax.8. It is difficult for us to see what bearing the provisions cited from the Delhi Rent Control Act or the Full Bench decision of the High Court could have on the case now before us. It seems to us that Mr. Nariman is correct in submitting that the learned Judge of the High Court had himself misapprehended the law in holding that the Courts below had failed to find a prima facie case because of a misconception of law. However, as no. one has appeared on the date of the final hearing on behalf of the respondent., who had appeared through counsel to answer the show cause notice issued by this Court before granting special leave, we refrain from deciding the question whether the provisions cited by the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court have any bearing on the case before us or not. this is a matter which will be decided in the suit itself. We, therefore, leave it expressly open for determination.9. Mr. Nariman, learned Counsel for the Corporation, is, we think, on very firm ground in contending that balance of convenience could not be ignored in such cases and that the learned Judge of the High Court erred in holding that it could be.10. It also seems that the attention of the learned Judge was not directed towards Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which lays down that an injunction, which is a discretionary equitable relief, cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any other usual mode or proceeding except in cases of breach of trust. Learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation points out that there was the ordinary machinery of appeal, under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, open to the assessee respondent. It had not even been found that the respondent was unable to deposit the necessary amount before filing the appeal. However, we abstain from deciding the question whether a prima facie case exists for the grant of an interim injunction.11. In M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufactures v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1976, D/- 1-11-1976 (SC) also we found very recently that, as in the case before us now, a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court had overlooked the principles governing interference under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code laid down by this Court in Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmmistan Distributors (India) (P) Ltd., (1970) 1 SCR 435 = (AIR 1970 SC 406 ); D. L.F. Housing & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh, (AIR 1971 SC 2324 ); The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balangar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, (AIR 1973 SC 76 ).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. It is difficult for us to see what bearing the provisions cited from the Delhi Rent Control Act or the Full Bench decision of the High Court could have on the case now before us. It seems to us that Mr. Nariman is correct in submitting that the learned Judge of the High Court had himself misapprehended the law in holding that the Courts below had failed to find a prima facie case because of a misconception of law. However, as no. one has appeared on the date of the final hearing on behalf of the respondent., who had appeared through counsel to answer the show cause notice issued by this Court before granting special leave, we refrainfrom deciding the question whether the provisions cited by the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court have any bearing on the case before us or not.this is a matter which will be decided in the suit itself. We, therefore, leave it expressly open for determination.It also seems that the attention of the learned Judge was not directed towards Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which lays down that an injunction, which is a discretionary equitable relief, cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any other usual mode or proceeding except in cases of breach of trust.