Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s popat & Kotecha property & ORS. Vs Ashim Kumar Dey (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 8149 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/08/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

M/s popat & Kotecha property & ORS. Vs Ashim Kumar Dey (Supreme Court of India)

Issue- Whether after the amendment of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act by  Amendment Act No. 14 of 2001 with effect from 10th July, 2001 [which had incorporated sub-section (8) to Section 5] whether a tenant who defaults in payment of his/her share of municipal tax as apportioned by the landlord would be in default of rent rendering him/her liable to eviction.

Held by Supreme Court

While the provisions of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 make it very clear that an occupier as distinguished from the owner i.e. ‘person primarily liable’ is entitled to pre-assessment notice and to participate in the assessment proceedings and also to question the same by way of an appeal, etc. assessment of a part of the premises in occupation of a tenant or different parts of such premises in occupation of different tenants is not contemplated under the 1980 Act. Rather, from the provisions of Section 230 of the 1980 Act, it is clear that the person to be assessed to tax is the person primarily liable to pay i.e. the owner who is vested with the right to recover the portion of the tax paid by him on behalf of the tenant, if required, proportionately to the extent that the value of the area occupied bears to the value of the total area of the property. Under the 1980 Act, in the event of any default on the part of the owner to pay the tax the rent payable by the tenant(s) is liable to be attached.

In the present case, default on the part of the respondent-tenant is clear and evident. The obligation to pay municipal taxes on the tenant being over and above the obligation to pay the rent by virtue of the provisions of Section 5(8)  of the 1997 Act, the High Court could not have  imposed on the landlord the requirement of obtaining a formal order of enhancement of rent from the Rent Controller.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

  1. Noshir says:

    The tenants regularly pay property tax and repair cess. The landlord does not pay to the government. Why should The property be attached and tenants suffer. Please advise. 9820854929

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031