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 res