( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of Municipal Appeal No. 186 of 1986 under section 2 (1) (ix) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 by the Additional Chief Judge, Bombay by order dated 30th July, 1988.

( 2 ) THE facts which are not disputed for the purposes of the present appeal are that the appellant is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust act, 1950 having its office at Mumbai. Respondent no. 1 is the Corporation established under the Bombay Municipal corporation Act, 1888 and respondent no. 2 is the Chief executive Officer of respondent no. 1.

( 3 ) THE appellant is the owner of a godown situated at 3 Mumbai. It has been let out to M/s. I. T. C. And M/s. Chika limited on lease for store purposes. The said godown was let out for the first time in 1978 under the agreement dated 7. 4. 1978 at the rent of Re. 1. 30 ps. Per sq. ft. per month inclusive of municipal taxes. By agreement dated 3. 1. 1984 the rent was enhanced to Re. 1. 55 ps. Per sq. ft. per month. The said godown was assessed by respondent no. 1.

( 4 ) THE appellant objected the assessment. After giving notice as required under the provisions of the bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and after hearing the appellant, the investigating officer by his order dated 31. 3. 1986 fixed Rateable Value at Rs. 1,74,245/- with effect from 1. 4. 1986.

( 5 ) THE appellant preferred appeal against the order of the investigating officer challenging the fixation of Rateable value. According to the appellant the order of the investigating officer is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 154 of the Bombay Municipal corporation Act, 1888. The Rateable Value fixed by the investigating officer is highly excessive, exorbitant and is not reasonable letting value of the said property. According to the appellant the said property was previously assessed to Rs. 88,795/- per annum with effect from 1. 7. 1978. There was no change in the property nor there was any other reason to warrant increase in the Rateable value of the said property. The investigating officer failed to take into consideration the location of the property and the amenities available. The investigating officer also failed to consider that the appellant is a public charitable trust and the appellant is utilising the money for public charity purpose. The investigating officer should have considered the standard rent namely the rent at which the godown was first let though the rent was increased. The appellant, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of the investigating officer dated 31. 3. 1986 and for fixation of proper and reasonable Rateable Value of the said property.

( 6 ) THE respondents opposed the appeal by their written statement. According to the respondents the premises are being used for commercial purposes and as such the Rateable Value is bound to be high. The respondents submitted that the property is to be assessed on the basis of the agreed rent of the property during the relevant year of assessment or what the property would normally fetch in given circumstances i. e. what the hypothetic tenant would pay to the hypothetical landlord during the relevant year of the assessment. Hence the respondents submitted that the contention of the appellant that the Rateable Value fixed by the respondents is high as compared to previous assessment year cannot hold good. It was further contended that the appellant did not challenge the Rateable Value of the earlier year and thus acquiesced the same. According to the respondents the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) THE appellants examined Saraldas Sitaram Sohal, who was working with the appellant as Manager since 1978. He was cross examined on behalf of the respondents. The appellant also filed several documents.

( 8 ) AFTER considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Chief Judge, bombay held that the impugned order dated 31. 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document