Q1 The rateable value of my old building was assessed on the basis of the arbitration award an the rent received by me and prevailing in the neighbourhood. My contention was that the rateable value should be assessed on the basis of standard rent. The N.D.M.C assessed the standard rent by applying the provisions of section 9 (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Whether this assessment is correct?
A. The determination of the rateable value of the old building by invoking the provisions of section 9(4) of DRC Act is not valid. The N.D.M.C was bound to determine the rateable value by applying the provisions of section 6 and not section 9(4). The assessment should be quashed and the case remanded .
Q2. I constructed a new building. When the portion of that building were let out by me, M.C.D increased the rateable value. Whether this is justified?
A. In the present case, the M.C.D is justified in increased the rateable value from time to time when portions of the new building are let out.
Q3. I am the owner of a building to which recently I made an extension. The M.C.D. reassessed the rateable value taking the market value of the land into account. My plea is that as it was an extension of old building, the standard rate has to be determine in accordance with section 7 of the DRC Act. Whether my contention is valid?
A. In determining the rateable value, the Assessor will first have to examine whether this amounts to an addition in the premises of the existing tenant so as to attract the provisions of section 7 of the Act. If the rest of the new building was self-occupied till portion of the same was let out, the provision of section 7 would not be applicable in determining the standard rent of the rest of the new building. The standard rent of the same will have to be determined by applying the provision of section 6 of the Act, which requires the taking into consideration of the market price of the land on which the premises are constructed.
Q4. M.C.D issued me a notice under section 126 of the Municipal Corporation Act to enhance the rateable value of my building. Later, an order was passed on the basis of the notice and three bills were issued to me. The matter was finally compromised. However, M.C.D issued another bill to me in violation of the terms of compromise. What relief can I seek against the above ?
A. You can file a Suit for restraining M.C.D for enforcement of its demand. You can seek the direction from the court to quash the above assessment order and the demand bills and seek fresh reassessment.
Q5. A show cause notice was issued by the MCD in the name of my father whereas I am the owner of the concern building. Subsequently, demolition order was passed against the owner. Whether this demolition order is valid in law ?
A. The provisions of section 343 and 344 of the DMC Act are mandatory. The demolition order is bad in law as no show caused notice was served on the owners.
Q6. I reside in Sainik Farms and have an electrical connection for agricultural use, since 1983 which I use also for domestic personal residential use. I have been asking for a domestic connection but whereas others with influence have got it, I have not. DESU (DVB) has, in interest charges thereon which now amount to over Rs.1,50,000/- even though, since 1998, I have stopped using DESU supply and am relying only an genset for supply. Even if I was to pay the misuse, which is well nigh impossible, I receive two months bills amounting to Rs.10,000/- and over. When I protest, they say the meter is not working or has been tampered with. It is an SOS?
A. In your case it seems that the DVB has been unnecessarily harassing you, the remedy available to you under the law of the land is to file a Writ Petition in the High Court praying for quashing of the dubious order of the DVB and also for action against the erring DVB officials. You can also in the said writ petition plead of having been discriminated against persons similarly situated who have got the electric connection. All documentary proof in support of your contentions should be filed along with a writ petition. The said remedy would also be appropriate for you, since the same with circumvent filing of any fraudulent case tempering of meter against you by the DVB.
Q7. Are government undertakings like DESU (DVB) immune from the Limitations Act? Recently, I have received from DESU a bill for misuse charges for the period before 1993.
A. No. DESU (DVB) is not immune from the Limitation Act which prescribes a period of 3 years for filing of Suit for recovery of any amount. As such DESU cannot claim the misuse charges for the period before 1993.
Q8. I applied for a telephone connection with Ghaziabad telecom. The connection was not installed by S.D.O. Phones inspite of issue of O.B. I file a case in Consumer Forum, which was decided in my favour. Can I ask Ghaziabad telecom to initiate enquiry against the erring officer for willfully not installing telephone?
A. After the decision of the case by the Consumer Court you can file an application for execution of the order if the telephone is not installed. At the same time you can also call upon the authorities to take action against the guilty officer in view of the decision given by the Consumer Court in your favour.
Q9. Our company markets medical equipment, We supplied 2 nos. Dialysis Machines to The Superintendent, VSS Medical College Hospital, Distt. Burla, Orissa in 1997. The hospital has not made any payments to us. The payment amount is Rs.13.3. lakhs. In the meanwhile, based on some fictitious complaint, the hospital now has changed their stand and they say that the machines supplied by us were defective and we should replace them. You will agree that after using the machines for 3 years, they can not ask for a replacement now. Inspite of our best efforts, the hospital is still evasive about a firm commitment to pay. What are the options available to us? Can we file suit to recover our money?
A. On what date the payment was made because the limitation for filling the suit for recovery of the amount is three years from the date of the contract. It can further be from the date of supply of the machine, which ever is later. The limitation can also start afresh if any part payment is made. Then three years period is to be constructed from the last payment. In your case it appears that no payment has been made. So please file the recovery suit immediately if it is within time. If the guarantee period have expired the hospital can not claim the replacement of the machine.
Q10. Where I can find judgements of consumer forum relating to MTBL and Ghaziabad Development Authority?
A. Judgement relating to consumer court can be found in the reporters called CPJ (Consumer Protection Journal) punished from Delhi.