JUDGMENT
S.C. Malte, J.
1. The petitioner filed this writ petition for relief against the order Annexure P-5 dated 24.8.1984, by which the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Local Government Department has dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner against the order of assessment of municipal taxes.
2. Papers before me indicate that in all five shops are owned by the petitioner. In respect of these shops, procedure for assessment of municipal tax was initiated. The Administrator of the Municipality then sent a notice, Annexure P-1, and informed the petitioner the proposed annual rental value and taxable value Of these stops. The petitioner by filing objection dated 12.2.1980 made a grievance regarding such an assessment. One of the grounds raised by him was that the clubbing of the shops together while assessing these for taxes, deprived him of the exemption which he would have been entitled to if these shops were considered separately. That contention did not find favour with the Administrator, Municipality. The petitioner took the matter by way of appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ambala. He dismissed the appeal. Against that, the petitioner preferred revision, which also was dismissed, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.
3. The counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that these shops were so far treated separate for the purpose of assessment, and the Municipality was not justified in clubbing these shops together, arid thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefit of exemption which he would have been entitled to. In this respect, the written statement filed by the Municipality indicates that the shops have been assessed separately for the purpose of house tax. It is, however, submitted that in order to ascertain whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption to certain extent on the ground that he is small landlord, the property in question had to be clubbed together for the purpose of the income from the rental value “of this property. In this respect my attention was also invited to the mention of the circular in Annexure P-3 which is an order passed by the Administrator of the Municipality while disposing of the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of the assessment of the house tax. In Annexure P-3 there is a mention of Government Circular No. 11692-IC-9-63/9197 dated 16.3.1994, and No. 19/35/80-5-CI dated 21.9.1981. It appears clearly that as per that circular, exemption to the landlord/owner is allowed only in those cases where the aggregate rental value of the property owned by a person does not exceed Rs.600/- It is, therefore, obvious that assessment of shops for the purpose of house tax is a different matter from the assessment of entitlement of a person to certain exemption as per that circular. The papers before me indicate that the shops were separately assessed for the purpose of house tax.
4. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Sadhu Ram Jain v. State of Punjab, 1977 RLR 79 to substantiate his argument that different property cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of assessment of the house tax. In the reported ruling separate building belonging to single owner had been clubbed together for the purpose of ascertaining the annual rental value. That was found to be not permissible. To that extent, there is no dispute in the present case. The assessment of each shop is made separate for the purpose of assessing the house tax. The clubbing of the properties for the purpose of ascertaining exemption was done as per the circular mentioned above.
5. As observed above, he assessment of house tax is an aspect separate from the clubbing of property of an owner to ascertain his entitement to obtain exemption, as per the circular. Petition dismissed. No costs.