JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.—The appellant is liable to property tax leviable under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (the Act). It constructed a building on two plots bearing Nos. 165 and 166. The construction started in February 1962 and was completed by December 1964. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, for short the Corporation, asked the assessee to show cause as to why the rateable value should not be raised to Rs 17,36,420 with effect from 16-6-1963. The assessee raised objection to the enhancement. After considering the objection, the Corporation fixed the rateable value at Rs 12,16,285 by adopting a method styled as comparative. The assessment as finalised by the Corporation came to be challenged by the assessee-appellant before the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court under Section 217 of the Act. One of the contentions advanced by the assessee was that instead of the comparative method adopted by the Corporation, the suitable basis for assessment was contractors method. Both the parties led evidence and the Chief Judge came to the conclusion that the comparative method was not unsuitable. It was secondly held that even if the contractors method was to be adopted, the result would not have been different. After going through the merits of the controversy the Chief Judge reduced the rateable value to Rs 9,97,555. Both the Corporation and the assessee appealed before the High Court of Bombay and by the impugned judgment the High Court has accepted the appeal of the Corporation by enhancing the rateable value to Rs 11,81,450. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. This appeal by special leave is by the assessee.

2. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the comparative method was held to be unsuitable inasmuch as there being no other building within the area comparable in all respects to the building in question, that method could not apply, as, what would have been the rent of the building if let out to a tenant could not be known. This view taken by the High Court is not assailed before us by any of the parties. We would, therefore, see whether while adopting the contractors method, any wrong has been committed in fixation of the rateable value at Rs 11,81,450.

3. According to the appellant, the High Court erred in including the following items in the cost of construction:

(a) Cost of air-conditioning machinery amounting to Rs 5,91,767.50.

(b) Cost of false ceiling amounting to Rs 7,80,289.

(c) Cost of wooden partitions dividing the floor spaces amounting to Rs 3,45,032.10.

(d) Cost of mural figure on the outside wall amounting to Rs 15,000.

(e) Amount of ground rent for 4 years and 4 months @ Rs 59,000 per year - the total of which comes to Rs 1,94,065.60.

(f) A sum of Rs 1,61,721.28 being the interest on Rs 2,98,562.50 which the appellant had deposited with the Corporation while undertaking the construction of the building.

(g) A sum of Rs 14,38,589.83 representing interest @ 6 1/2% on Rs 82,99,557.07 which was the total cost of construction.

4. We would express our views on the aforesaid objections as listed:

Items (a) and (b)

5. Both these items have been taken together as they relate to air-conditioning of the building. The type of air-conditioning device put up has been well explained in the impugned judgment at pages 54 and 55 of the paper-book. It is embedded and mounted on a concrete foundation and the building has been so designed as to have the whole of it centrally air-conditioned. For this purpose, a provision was made for concrete cooling towers on the terrace and steel pipes have been laid to ensure the circulation of the cooling water from the tower to the ground floor and then back to the tower. To ensure this, false ceiling on each floor was required which costed Rs 7,80,289 in all, which is more than the cost of the machinery which was Rs 5,91,767.50.

6. The aforesaid leaves no manner of doubt that the air-conditioning machinery had been installed for the purpose of better enjoyment of the building its