Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
1971 S C M R 109
Present : Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ
FARIDA KHAN‑Petitioner
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
KARACHI‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑14 of 1970, decided on 19th August 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 15th October 1968, in Petition No. 99 of 1964, read with order dated 30th January 1970).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 98‑"Aggrieved party Lessee in terms of lease deed liable to pay municipal taxes and in fact paying them‑Owner of demised property challenging order of assessment by way of writ petition in High Court‑Held : Owner, in circumstance, not "aggrieved party" and had no locus standi to maintain writ petition.
Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yousuf Rafi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 19th August 1970.
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑
Petitioner is the owner of a residential building situated in Karachi. He leased it out to Siemens (Pakistan) Engineering Company Limited in 1952 on the stipulation that municipal taxes will be paid by the lessee. It appears that in 1960 the building was assessed to tax and demand notices A/ 1 to A/8 were issued to the petitioner who thereupon lodged objections with the Chairman, Karachi Municipality, one the question of quantum alone. The objections were rejected whereupon the tax due was paid by the said tenant of the petitioner to the Municipality. The petitioner then finally ,q moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction on the ground that proper procedure was not adopted in assessing the tax. The petition was dismissed in limine as the admitted position was that under the agreement of lease municipal taxes were payable by the lessees and they had in fact paid the amount claimed in the notices A/1 to A/8. The petitioner was therefore not an aggrieved person within Article 98 of the Constitution.
The view adopted by the High Court appears to be unexcep tionable more so as the objections raised by the petitioner were confined to quantum of tax while in writ petition the levy was challenged on the ground that proper procedure was not adopted by the taxing authorities.
The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer