YUSUF EBRAHIM KHOKHAWALAYUSUF EBRAHIM KHOKHAWALA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER BOMBAY WITH SIX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven first appeals under section 218 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, raise a common question of law and can be disposed of conveniently by this common judgment. Appeals Nos. 422, 424, 426 and 427 of 1973 arise out of the fixation of the rateable value under section 154 of the Act in respect of the property bearing No. 2083, B Ward, Lokmanya Tilak Road, Bombay 400 022, while Appeals Nos. 423, 425 and 428 of 1973 arise out of the fixation of the rateable value of the property bearing No. 1541, B Ward, Street No. 7, Old Bengali Pura, Bombay 4000 03. The Appellants father was the original tenant of both these properties from 1942 onwards. Property bearing No. 2083 was purchased by the appellants on 28-8-1961, while the property bearing No. 1541 was purchased by the appellants on 9-9-1958. The rateable value of the property bearing No. 2083 was fixed at Rs. 1,750/- in the year 1961-62. It was raised to Rs. 7,270/- in the year 1962-63. It was again raised to Rs. 20,630/- in the year 1965-66. The appellants challenged this increase from Rs. 7,270/- to Rs. 20,630/- by an appeal to the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under section 217 of the Act. The said appeal was rejected and Appeal No. 424 of 1973 arises out of the same. Subsequents assessments of taxes for the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 giving rise to Appeals Nos. 422 and 427 are based on the same valuation. According to the appellants, after the purchase of the property by them, their father continued to be the tenant of the premises and paid the same rent, which he was paying to the original owner of the property. According to the appellants, their father allowed some strangers to occupy the said premises on leave and licence basis. The fees or compensation received by their father from these stranger licensees cannot furnish basis for fixation of the rateable value of the property under consideration. According to the appellants, the property is very old and was already let out to the tenants before September, 1940. The appellants father himself was paying rent of these premises at Rs. 102/- in the year 1942 and continued to pay the same till 1953. The rent was increased to Rs. 117/- during the years 1954 to 1958. It was finally increased to Rs. 123.21 during the year 1960-61. This, according to the appellants, can be the standard rent of the premises. Rateable value, according to the appellants, ought to be fixed by reference to this standard rent.

(2.) Similarly the rent of the property bearing No. 1541 is claimed to be Rs. 63.84 during the period from 1942 to 1962. There was no change whatsoever in the rent. The rateable value of the building in the year 1960-62 was fixed at Rs. 1,210/-. It was increased to Rs. 1,290/- in the year 1962-63. Earlier challenges to the said rateable value, no doubt, failed. Even so, according to the appellants, they are entitled to challenge the said rateable value as, according to the appellants, it cannot be fixed in disregard of the standard rent and which, according to the appellants, can under no circumstances be more than Rs. 63.84 Ps. The assessment of the rateable value by reference to what the licensees of the appellants father paid to the appellants father can never furnish any basis for fixation of the rateable value.

(3.) As stated earlier, this claim of the appellants was rejected by the Corporation as also by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in appeals. The validity of this assessment is challenged in all these appeals by the assessees.