D. G. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE appeal is filed by the builder challenging the order of the Additional chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31-3-2000 in Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and in which the order of assessment passed by the respondents Officer on 10-8- 1999 was in question. That order of the respondents was refusal to entertain the complaint of the appellants and confirming rateable value.

( 3 ) FOLLOWING are the facts giving rise to the disputed question : a huge slum was existing on plot bearing C. T. S. Nos. 426 (part) 428 to 430, 432 to 437, Siwadi Village, Andheri (East), Mumbai, K/east Ward. It was proposed to implement a scheme for slum rehabilitation by the Government of Maharashtra under Development Control Rules, 33 (5) to 33 (1 ). The letter of intent therefore was given by the SRA-Slum Rahabilitation Authority to the appellants. The entire land on which the slum was situated was owned by the Government of Maharashtra. The property vested in the Government of Maharashtra.

( 4 ) THE Slum Rehabilitation was to be done pursuant to the Letter of Intent in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned therein and appellants got necessary authority from SRA in that regard. There were more than 1000 occupants or dwellers of the slum and as part of the development project, this slum dwellers had to be provided alternate transit accommodation, their slums or houses were to be demolished, new buildings were to be constructed and all those slum dwellers, to whom alternate transit camp was provided were to be housed in the new buildings. Society for each of the building was to be formed to whom the maintenance of each building was entrusted. Therefore, the question that arises is whether under a Rehabilitation Scheme at the instance of SRA where the plot belongs to the Government, the builder to whom the rehabilitation work is entrusted by SRA, is liable to pay property tax in respect of the transit camp accommodation constructed by him for the slum dwellers.

( 5 ) BEFORE considering the aforesaid issue, the facts which are not disputed or were admitted, are required to be noted. They are that the aforesaid CTS numbers were and are the property of the Government of Maharashtra; it is declared as a slum, SRA Authorities constituted; land vests in the SRA Authority who alone can develop it; that the development is carried by the appellant as per the D. C. Rules 33 (5) to 33 (10); the transit temporary accommodation is to be purely of a temporary nature and for temporary period i. e. till buildings are constructed and slum dwellers are rehabilitated in those buildings and that transit camp accommodation is constructed with kacha material and there were 326 tenants in the transit camp and the question is whether the builders-appellants are liable to pay taxes as per the order dated 10-8-1999.

( 6 ) BEFORE the lower Court the appellants examined one witness Ramani who was Manager of the appellant No. 1 since 1997 and respondents examined Ankush Sawant who was working in K/e ward of B. M. C. It is true that the question involved is basically a question of law but evidence adduced by the parties is of the following nature.

( 7 ) RAMANI has stated in his evidence that SRA gave the property to them for development pursuant to letter of intent dated 3-12-1998, they were asked by this letter to rehabilitate the slum dwellers at Gaiwadi. Accordingly, the transit camp was constructed for the slum dwellers, the slum property i. e. plot belongs to the Government of Maharashtra. The slum was existing on that plot and the appellants are not liable to pay taxes to the respondents as the property belongs to the Government of Maharashtra. He produced copy of the Government Gazette dated 6-7-1998 at Exhibit "h", where the appeal property is shown at Sr. No. 14. He stated that slum dwellers were shifted to transit camp and th