BHARAT HIRACHAND MEHTA Vs. SATARA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these two petitions, the petitioners are challenging orders passed by the IInd Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Satara dated 16-7-1984. The facts giving rise to these petitions and the question that falls for consideration in these petitions are the same. Therefore, both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) WRIT Petition No.3975 of 1984 relates to determination of annual letting value of house bearing CTS No. 502/6 of Sadar Bazar, Satara and writ petition No.3976 of 1984 relates to fixing of annual letting value of house bearing CTS No. 502/1 and 2 of Sadar Bazar, Satara. The local authority of Satara fixed annual letting value of both the buildings at Rs.9,000/-. The petitioners filed appeals before the Judicial Magistrate, Satara. Both the appeals were allowed and the annual letting value was reduced from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. The local authority preferred revisions against the orders passed by the appellate court. The revisional court allowed both the revisions and restored the annual letting value at Rs.9,000/-

(3.) NOW perusal of the order passed by the appellate court shows that the appellate court has nowhere considered the costs of construction of these two buildings. The appellate court has considered only one fact viz., the annual letting value of the adjoining buildings. Now without first finding out the year of construction of adjoining buildings, the nature of construction and without recording a finding that the adjoining buildings are comparable to the building under consideration from the point of view of fixing annual letting value, the rental value of these buildings could not have been considered by the appellate court. Therefore, in my opinion, the revisional court was perfectly justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. The revisional court has found that the buildings are in a good locality and that all the civic amenities are available in that locality and that an amount of Rs, 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- has been spent for construction of the respective buildings. It is further to be seen here that the work of arriving at the annual letting value of a building is in the field of specialized knowledge of the subject and, therefore, when annual letting value is fixed by the Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council on the basis of the assessment done by competent officer that is not to be interfered with by the courts lightly unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In the present case I do not find that there were any such reasons for the appellate court to interfere with the annual letting value of the building arrived at by the local authority. Thus I do not find any manifest error of law in the order of the revisional court. In the result, petitions fail and dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.