SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Motichand Hirachand and others, Appellants
Versus
Bombay Municipal Corporation, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 378 of l965,
D/- 15-9-1967
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Raj Bahadur, Advocate, and Mr. B. R. Agarwala, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Appellants, Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Mr. O. P. Malhotra, Advocate and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Respondent.
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTION 154(1) - RATABLE VALUE OF BUILDING - INCOME FROM ADVERTISEMENT HOARDING ON ROOF - WHETHER CAN BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, owners of a building in Bombay, challenged the increase in the rateable value of their building by the respondent corporation. The increase was made on the ground that the appellants were receiving income from an agreement with a company that allowed the company to display a neon-sign advertisement on the roof of the building.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the income from the advertisement hoarding could be taken into consideration by the assessing authority while determining the annual rent of the building. The court reasoned that a hypothetical tenant would take such extra income into account while considering what rent he can afford to offer for such building.
Issues: Whether the income from the advertisement hoarding could be taken into consideration by the assessing authority while determining the annual rent of the building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the income from the advertisement hoarding could be taken into consideration by the assessing authority while determining the annual rent of the building. The court reasoned that a hypothetical tenant would take such extra income into account while considering what rent he can afford to offer for such building.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgement
SHELAT, J. :- Whether in determining the rateable value of a building the assessing authority under S. 154(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act III of 1888 can take into consideration income derived by the owner under an agreement entitling an advertisement hoarding to be put up on the roof of such building is the question arising in this appeal.
2. For consideration of this question a few relevant facts may first be recited. The appellants are the owners of "Fulchand Nivas", a building situate at the corner of what was known at the relevant time as Marine Drive and Sandhurst Road opposite Chowpatty Sea Face, Bombay. The building consists of ground and five upper floors and a terrace; The ground floor and five upper floors of the building were and are let out. For the last few years the Municipal Corporation has been assessing the rateable value of the building as equivalent to the actual rents recovered by the owners. After the rateable value for the year 1956-57 was assessed it was found that the terrace of the building was used for advertising Tata Mercedes-Benz Automobile Trucks and Buses by means of a neon-sign. This was done under an agreement dated February 5, 1957 entered into by the appellants under which the Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd., had agreed to pay to the appellant Rs. 800 per month in consideration of their being allowed to display the said advertisement and a further sum of Rs. 700 in consideration of the owners agreeing not to allow any one else to use any portion of the said building for displaying any advertisement save those of the tenants on the ground floor not above the level of the height of the ground floor. The agreement provided also that it would be the owners who, during the continuance of the agreement would pay all existing and future rates, taxes, etc., which would be assessed, imposed, charged or become payable in respect of the said building or the said advertisement except the Municipal Licence fee in respect of said advertisement which would be borne by the Company. On March 3, 1958 the respondent corporation issued a notice under section 167 of the Act informing the owners that the assessment book had been amended and that the amount of the rateable value of the building was increased from Rupees 44,320 to Rs. 64, 685. The appellants thereupon filed a complaint under section 163 (2) of the Act against the said increase and the assessing authority by an order dated February 21, 1959 reduced the rateable value from Rs. 84,685 to Rs. 59,600. In maintaining the increase from Rs. 44,320 to Rs. 59,600 the assessing authority took into account the additional income arising from the said agreement and received by the appellants. The appellants thereupon filed an appeal before the Chief Judge, Small Cause Court Bombay, objecting to the said increase. The Chief Judge disallowed the said increase and directed that the rateable value should be Rs. 44,320. The Chief Judge held that under the said agreement there was no demise or transfer of an interest in the said property in favour of the Committee that the said agreement amounted merely to a licence revocable at any time though subject to the express terms of the agreement and was no more than a grant of a right in gross to display neon-sine outside the property and that the only user of the property was that of a small portion of the terrace used as a base for the said advertisement. He held that it was not any inherent or intrinsic quality of any portion of the property which commanded such a high consideration as the sum of Rs. 1500 per month. Aggrieved by this order the respondent Corporation filed an appeal before the High Court at Bombay. The High Court held that the Chief Judge was in error in holding that the Municipal Corporation was not enticed to take into account income earned by the owners under the said agreement, set aside his order and restored the original value assessed by the assessing authority at Rupee
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.