AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORP Vs. SAMVEG ARVINDBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, through the Municipal Commissioner, is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 13.1.1983 passed by the learned Judge, Court No.17 of Ahmedabad City Civil Court in Civil Suit No.2502 of 1979. The suit was filed by the plaintiff - opponent herein Shri Arvindbhai Narottambhai Sheth to recover Rs.41,865.08 ps. along with cost and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the defendant - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'AMC' for short). Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.27,120.28 ps. is claimed by way of refund of 2/3rd amount of general tax paid by him for the year 1976 -77 in respect of ground floor and first floor of Anand Shopping Center. Further sum of Rs. 6552.92 ps. is claimed by way of refund of entire water tax for the year 1976 -77 (1.4.1976 - 31.3.1977) in respect of the aforesaid premises of Anand Shopping Center. A sum of Rs.8191.98 ps. is claimed by way of refund of entire conservancy tax for the year 1976 -77 in respect of the aforesaid premises of Anand Shopping Center. The learned Judge was pleased to take note of the rival submissions of the parties and was pleased to frame issues, which are recorded in para 4 of the judgment and order. For ready perusal, para 4 is reproduced hereunder : -

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat for the appellant -Corporation submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in passing this order without appreciating the relevant provisions of law. He submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the responsibility of declaring a premises 'vacant' is on the owner/occupant of the premises. He submitted that the learned Judge has referred to wrong provision to come to the conclusion that the premises were 'vacant' for the entire period (1976 -77).

(3.) The learned Advocate invited attention of the Court to para in which Issue No.5 is discussed. He submitted that, 'it is not in dispute that the premises were newly constructed premises' and it was for the first time that in the year 1976, the opponent herein declared before the Corporation about the completion of the work. Not only that after the said declaration was made before the Corporation, the opponent herein applied for permission to occupy the ground floor on 24.5.1976 and he applied for permission to occupy the first floor on 10.10.1976. The learned Advocate for the Corporation further submitted that it is not in dispute that the Corporation granted permission to occupy the ground floor on 17.8.1976, whereas the permission to occupy the first floor was granted on 28.6.1978.