2010 PLP 543 (CLC)

CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.

The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-12-1993, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal and further concurred by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal vide his judgment and decree dated 10-5-1994. 2 Brief facts given in the plaint are that the plaintiffs/respondents are owners of Shop No.61/B-III, situated in Saddar Bazar Sahiwal. It was rented out to Commercial Cooperative Development Corporation hereinafter referred to be as "the Corporation" w.e.f. 171-1988 on a monthly rent of Rs.2800 till 31-12-1992. The, Corporation was declared , illegal by the Provincial Government on 31-12-1990 and thence onward the plaintiffs/respondents did not receive any rent from the Corporation and the shop was sealed by the Registrar Cooperative Society, Punjab on 6-11-1991 and that the plaintiffs never received any rent from the shop since then. The petitioners levied a tax and the plaintiffs/respondents paid the same till 30-6-1991. The petitioners/defendants demanded that tax for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. On further coercive measures by the petitioners, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit. The petitioners/ defendants controverted the contents of the suit and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-. (i) Whether the present Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD (ii) Whether the suit is false, baseless, outcome of malice, not maintainable and the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. If so, is effect? OPD. (iii) Whether the demand of the defendants in respect of property tax for the year, 1991-92 and 1992-93 is against law and facts, against the principles of natural justice, void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP. (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of permanent injection, as prayed for? OPD. (v) Relief.

3. The parties led their respective evidence. Learned Assistant Advocate-General while representing the petitioners has submitted:

(i) That the appeal was not time-barred, as no notice about the copy having been prepared was given by the Copying Branch. (ii) The property was sealed by the Liquidation Board and the petitioner-government is not responsible for the sealing of the shop: (iii) Even though the property was sealed, the respondents/plaintiffs were bound to pay the rent.

4. Learned counsel of the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgments of the learned courts below.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record minutely.

6. On the point of limitation. I have my reservations about the decision of the learned appellate Court. As the notice had not been given, therefore, from the day of supply of the copy, the appeal was within limitation. However, on merits, the-contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners arc not tenable. The admitted position is that the property was leased out to Corporation. It is also admitted fact that till the property was not sealed and the rent was paid to the respondents, they continued paying the tax. The respondents are not liable to pay the tax on the rent, which they had not received. Therefore, the demand notice in dispute was illegal and invalid. I am fortified by the judgment reported as PLD 1976 SC 615 Lyallpur Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner Sargodha Division and another. It has been held by the honourable apex Court as follows:

"Section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 read with rule 6(e) of the Rules framed under the Act clearly contemplates that the basis of assessment should be either the actual gross annual rent or the gross annual rent that could reasonably be earned during the financial year immediately proceeding the current financial year or might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year."

7. As the respondents have established that they did not receive any rent for the period under demand notice, therefore, they are not liable to pay the tax to the petitioners.

8. Besides, no illegality or material irregularity has been shown in the impugned judgments and decrees.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./P-32/L Revision dismissed.