GULAM AHMED ROGAY Vs. BOMBAY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made to us by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay under Section 218c, City of Bombay Municipal Act. The question referred to this Ct. is, whether in arriving at the valuation, for the purposes of Section 154, City of Bombay Municipal Act, of property to which the Bombay Rent Control Act of 1947 applies, the maximum gross value to be assigned to the property is limited to the maximum standard rent of the property together with the additions thereto permitted by the latter Act.

(2.) IT appears from the record there was a dispute between the landlords of certain premises, which are liable to be assessed for Municipal taxes under the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and the Municipality about the rateable value of those premises. In order to apply the scale of rates, it is necessary to determine under Section 154, City of Bombay Municipal Act, the rateable value of the property in question; and Section 154 (1) says that the rateable value shall be arrived at in the following manner:

(3.) NOW, a similar question arose for determination in England under Rent Restrictions Act, 1920. Valuation for the purposes of rating was there made under Section 4, Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, which in the first instance, required the determination of a term called "the gross value. " It was defined as the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for a hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and "rateable value was defined as the gross value after deducting therefrom the probable annual average cost of the repairs and insurance. " Under the terms of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, even if the tenant paid a rent in excess of the maximum prescribed by the Act, he was entitled to recover it from the landlord, and the landlord argued that, inasmuch as there was a maximum limit imposed upon what he was entitled to realise from the tenant, in the first instance the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, would have to be taken into consideration in arriving at the valuation of the hereditament, and secondly, the highest gross value which could be assigned to a hereditament would be the standard rent within the meaning of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, which was applicable to the hereditaments plus the increase of rent permitted by the Act. Now, these questions were decided by the Divisional Court in favour of the landlord, and when the Assessment Committee of the Metropolitar Borough of Poplar went in appeal, the ap- pellate Ct. (Bankes L. J. dissenting), agreed with the view of the King's Bench Division; but when the Assessment Committee appealed to the House of Lords, again Carson L. J. , dissenting, the order of the Ct. of Appeal was revsd. , and both the questions were decided against the landlord.