' This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and decree passed on 11th January, 1974 in Civil Appeal No, 103/1973 by the learned District Judge at Karachi, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge First Class, Karachi on 28th May, 1973, dismissing the Suit No, 1817 of 1968, was upheld.
1. The brief facts are that the applicants (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) are the owners of the property bearing No, N.P.11/24 situated in Jodia Bazaar, Karachi, its rental value in 1963 was assessed at Rs, 5,772, which in the year 1968, was increased to Rs, 12,048, in the draft valuation list.
Objections were filed by the plaintiffs to the said proposed increase in the G.A.R.V. Whereupon it was reduced to Rs,7,215. The plaintiffs, however, being not satisfied with this reduced assessment of the rental value, filed Revision Application No, 277 of 1968. The said Revision Application was heard by the Additional Commissioner, Karachi in his capacity as the Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Karachi, whereby in the absence of the plaintiffs the said petition was disposed of on merits. By the said ex parte order passed on 2nd July, 1968 the rental value assessed by the Assessing Authority was held to be too low and was re-assessed by him at Rs,12,048. G.A.R.V.
2. The plaintiffs having no other alternate remedy available to them, filed Suit No,1817/1968, wherein they prayed for declaration that G.A.R.V. Of the property mentioned above fixed at Rs,7,215 by the defendant No, 2/ the Assessing Authority and fixed at Rs,12,048 by the defendant No,3/ the Commissioner of Excise & Taxation are unjust, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder and also against the principles of natural justice. The plaintiffs also prayed for consequential relief of injunction for restraining the defendants from realising taxes in respect of the said building on the basis of the G.A.R.V. Fixed as above.
3. The defendants contested the suit. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether the suit is barred under the Martial Law Regulation No, 33?
(2) Whether the suit is barred under section 22 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act?
(3) Whether the suit is barred under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act?
(4) Whether the G.A.R.V. Of the building in question has not been rightly and justly assessed under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and the Rules made therein by a competent authority?
(5) What should the decree be?"
4. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court under Issue No,4 held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that any of the provisions of the Act or the rules had been violated in assessing the rental value of the property in question. It was further held that the subject-matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the defendants, that the objections of the plaintiffs were duly considered and they themselves thereafter chose to prefer the Revision Application against the assessm ent made by the defendant No,2 but remained absent on the date of hearing. It was also held that the orders passed by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are self- explanatory and based on sound reasoning which cannot be interfered with in the civil suit.
Accordingly the Issue No,4 was answered against the plaintiffs.
' As regards Issues Nos. 1 and 3, it was observed that these issues were based upon the pleas raised in the written statement but no argument was advanced on behalf of the defendants and accordingly the said issues were treated as dropped and not pressed.
' Under Issue No,2, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the finding under Issue No,4 was barred by the provisions of section 22 of the said Act.
' As a result of the findings given as above, the learned trial court dismissed the suit by judgment delivered on 28th May, 1973.
5. Against the judgment and decree, passed by the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No, 103/1973, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge at Karachi on 11th January, 1974.
' The plaintiffs have now preferred this Revision Application under section 115 of C.P.C. In this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants, who raised a number of grounds in support of this Revision Application. I, however, find that this petition can be disposed of on the short ground that the respondent No,3/ defendant No,3 while disposing of the Revision Application, filed by the plaintiffs ex parte, re-assessed the G.A.R.V. And increased it from the rental value fixed at Rs,7,215 by the Assessing Authority to Rs,12,048 without giving any show-cause notice for the proposed re-assessm ent/increase in G.A.R.V. Mr. Abdul Sattar Memon, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants submitted that the defendant No,3/ the Revisional Authority under section 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act is empowered to suo motu exercise his revisional jurisdiction, call for and examine the record and proceedings or the order passed by any authority subordinate to him for the purpose to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety, of the same and pass order in reference thereto as he may consider fit. He, however, contended that the proceedings before the Revisional Authority were initiated on a revision application filed by the plaintiffs against the assessm ent of the rental value fixed at Rs,7,215 (G.A.R.V.) by the defendant No,2/ the assessing Authority, and that in case the Revisional Authority intended to exercise the suo motu powers to increase the said valuation in the absence of the plaintiffs it was incumbent upon him to have put them on notice of the proposed increase in the rental value. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel, I find it relevant to reproduce the order of the Revisional Authority which reads as follows:-- "The applicant has filed this Revision Application against the assessment of the rental value at Rs, 7,215 G.A.R.V. The premises constitute seven godowns and two offices situated in Napier Qtrs., Jodia Bazar, covered area of seven godowns and two offices is 4050 sq.Ft. The entire building has been built with R.C.C. Material. It is a prepartition building and situated in an important commercial area.
I assess the rental value at the rate of Re. 0.25, per sq. Ft. The rental value has been assessed too low. It is re-assessed at Rs, 12,048.00, G.A.R.V. The applicant did not attend court though had notice of hearing."
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants/the plaintiffs and after perusal of the record find that the property in question, which was purchased by the plaintiffs in 1962, was assessed in 1963 when Rs,5,772 was fixed as its General Annual Rental Value (G.A.R.V.) which was increased to Rs,12,048 in the new assessment made in the year 1968 as shown in the proposed valuation list. However, on the objections, filed by the plaintiffs against the said valuation, the G.A.R.V. Was reduced to Rs,7,215 by the defendant No,2 the Assessing Authority.
The plaintiffs, however, not being satisfied even with this reduction in the assessment preferred Revision Application which came up for hearing before the defendant No,3/ the Revisional Authority, who passed the order on 2nd July, 1968 reproduced above. It is correct that on the date fixed for the hearing of the Revision Application before the defendant No,3/ the Revisional Authority, the plaintiffs were absent but it is not disputed that the plaintiffs were not given any show-cause notice of the proposed increase or any increase in the G.A.R.V. Fixed at Rs,7,215 by the Assessing Authority by order passed on 6th May, 1968. It is thus obvious that the increase in the G.A.R.V. From Rs,7,215 to Rs,12,048 was made by the Revisional Authority without giving any show-cause notice or fair opportunity of being heard of the intention to increase the said assessment in exercise of suo motu powers. It would be relevant here to refer to the case of Byramji Dadabhoy Mama v. Karachi Municipal Corporation PLD 1974 Kar. 50, wherein while considering the powers of the concerned authority to amend the assessm ent list so as to increased the rental value, the learned Division Bench after considering the law on the subject, held as follows:-- "Our conclusion, therefore, is that, though the K.M.C. Was competent to make increase in the annual value of the two buildings in question with retrospective effect, under the circumstances and subject to the condition laid down by rule 7. This increase could not be made without notice to the appellants and without giving them opportunity to be heard in support of their objections as required by rule 7 of Chapter 2 of Schedule VIII of the K.M.C. Rules, and that, in making any increase in the annual value of the building, the K.M.C. Should have had regard to the fair rent of the building fixed under the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953. In this view of the matter, this appeal succeeds.
The order of the learned Judge on the Original Side is quashed and the appellants' suit is decreed."
' In the same case it was further held as follows:-- "Even if the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933, and the Rules made thereunder had not contained an express requirement that notice of the proposed amendment in the assessment list should be given to the interested person, the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases to which we have referred above and in the recent judgment, that is Pir Sarfraz Ahmad v. The Government of Pakistan 1971 SCMR 557 should have been sufficient to sustain the appellants' objection that the revision of the annual letting value of the properties in question without notice to the appellants was invalid for want of notice to them.'
(PLD 1961 SC 527, PLD 1965 SC 90, P L 0 1966 SC 536).
It would thus be observed from the principles discussed above that even in the absence of any statutory provisions the Revisional Authority could not have increased the G.A.R.V. Fixed by the Assessing Authority at Rs,7,215 to Rs,12,048 without giving to the plaintiffs any show-cause notice or fair opportunity of being heard against the proposed increase in the assessment.
8. I may also refer with advantage here to the case of M/s. Caltex Oil (Pakistan Limited) v. Province of Sind and others P L 0 1978 Kar.
958. In the said case after noticing the fact that the impugned order did not indicate that it was passed in exercise of suo motu revisional powers,the learned Division Bench of this Court after observing that the Revisional Authority acted without jurisdiction in permitting a disgruntled rival party to invoke, suo motu revisional powers after the expiry of period of limitation for filing of revision applications, held as follows:-- "The above is not the only illegality committed by respondent No,2 in passing the impugned order.
Despite the fact that he was reversing the order of the assessing authority and the effect of his order was to impose liability for the tax upon the petitioner, no notice or opportunity of being heard was given to it. The respondent No,2 thus has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice audi alteram partem. (no one shall be condemned unheard)."
It would thus be observed that the discussion as above shows that the impugned order passed by the defendant No,3/ the Revisional Authority suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice or fair opportunity of being heard was given to the plaintiffs against the proposed increase in the G.A.R.V. Accordingly the order, dated 2nd July, 1968, passed by the Revisional Authority/the defendant No,3, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority.
In view of the finding thus reached the bar of section 22 of the said Act would also not be attracted to the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that while declaring the order, passed by the Additional Commissioner/the Commissioner Excise & Taxation in Revision Application No,277 of 1968, as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and thus a nullity in the eyes of law, I hold that the said revision application shall be deemed to be pending before the Revisional Authority, who may now dispose of the same after following the procedure prescribed by the law and the principles of natural justice.
' Subject to the above observations the judgments and decrees, passed by the two Courts below, are set aside.
' In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.