JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal under Section 218 D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (as it then was, hereinafter “the said Act” or “BMC Act”), the Appellant (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay) has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 29 October 1990 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, C.R. No.18 of the Small Causes Court in Municipal Appeal No. 261 of 1985. This Municipal Appeal is filed by Respondent/Owner/Assessee of the subject property (described hereinafter) under Section 217 of the said Act, challenging the order dated 5 August 1985 passed by the Assessor & Collector, ‘C’ Ward fixing rateable value @ Rs.45,835/-

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance, perused the record.

3. Facts shorn of unnecessary details, for deciding this appeal, are as under.

a) Premises no. 21, which is a godown cum office in a building at 19/23 Vithoba Lane, Vithalwadi Bombay is the subject matter property.

b) In 1940, there were 4 tenants - Dwarkadas Pragji, Shrinath Shaligram, Gordhandas Gokuldas and Moraji Laxmidas in the suit building, out of which subject property was in possession of Gordhandas.

c) After Gordhandas, one M/s Daudayal and Asharam became tenant.

d) Sometime in 1973, the Respondent became owners of the subject property under a settlement in a High Court Suit, when Daudayal & Asharam was paying rent of Rs. 74/- per month.

e) After Daudayal & Asharam vacated, the Respondent carried out renovation by alterations and modifications to the subject property and let-out it to Sangli Bank from 1st June 1977 at monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- per month. This increase was reported by Respondent/Assessee to Appellants and accordingly, the Appellants modified the rateable value @ Rs. 30,440/- w.e.f 1 June 1977 from the earlier value of Rs. 5,785/- (hereinafter “the first revision”) This revision was not challenged by the Respondents.

f) From 1 April, 1982, the rateable value was again increased to Rs. 43,510/- due to increase in rent payable by Sangli Bank from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 6084/- (hereinafter “the second revision”). This value continued till March 1984. This revision was also not challenged by the Respondents.

g) From 1 April 1984, the rateable value was again increased to Rs. 45,835/- for Assessment Year 1984-85, due to further increase in rent (hereinafter “the third revision”). This time, the Respondents lodged a complaint with Appellants against the said increase in rateable value, however, the investigating officer decided/rejected complaint on 5 August 1985 and kept /fixed the rateable value at Rs. 45,835/-

h) The Respondent filed Municipal Appeal No. 261 of 1985 and challenged the order dated 5 August 1985 for setting aside the rateable value.

i) By impugned Judgment and Order dated 29 October 1990, the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court set aside the order of Assessor and Collector dated 5 August 1985 and directed the Appellants to fix rateable value on the basis of monthly rent of Rs. 196/- w.e.f. 01 April 1984 and make necessary adjustment and pay refund.

j) Appellants filed present First Appeal challenging the above order. This appeal was admitted on 7 February 1992.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Municipal Corporation, Mr. Pakale submitted that the burden to prove that the rateable value fixed by the officer is incorrect or illegal is on the Respondent/Assessee. He submitted that the learned Judge, while passing the impugned order has erroneously placed this burden on the Appellant/ Municipal Corporation. He further submitted that the Respondent/Assessee itself had informed that in the year 1977, the property was let out to Sangli Bank on monthly rent of Rs.4000/-and therefore, the rateable value was revised. He submitted that not only in 1977, but again in the year 1982 there was revision in rateable value. He submitted that first and second revision (increase) in rateable value, were not challenged by the Respondent/Assessee, but third revision is