Demand notices from municipal authorities for financial recovery must be assessed for monetary valuation as per applicable real estate and financial obligations under law.

FINAL ORDER :

. Heard.

2. The petition challenges the order dated 11th November, 2021, passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021, whereby the petitioner was directed to value the suit as per Section 6 (iv)(a) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act on or before next date and pay proper court fees.

3. R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021 was instituted by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 21.06.2021 issued by the Municipal Corporation Aurangabad raising a demand of Rs. 7,57,203/- upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner in the suit that by a registered lease deed executed between the parties the nallah belt was given on lease and construction over nallah belt was undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to the development permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. It is also the case in the suit that as per the agreement between the parties, the respondent is under obligation to clean the nala which is flowing below the building and not entire stretch and the expense of Rs 7,57,203/ which is sought to be claimed shows that the liability of cleaning the entire stretch of nallah is sought to be foisted on the Petitioner. The challenge to the notice is on an additional ground that as per the provisions the Section 153 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (for short “Corporation Act”), it is the duty of the Municipal Corporation to clean the nala and the demand raised by the notice dated 21.06.2021 is illegal and without authority of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit has been correctly valued U/Sec. 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act as the suit was for declaration and the subject matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary valuation and has accordingly paid the court fees. He would further submit that, it is clear from the prayers in the plaint that the petitioner seeks a declaration about the duty of the Municipal Corporation to clean the entire nala. He would further submit that although the demand notice makes a mention of amount of Rs. 7,57,203/-, the challenge is on jurisdictional issue. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon following decisions of this Court.

I. Vrindavan (borivali) Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Karmarkar Bros. and others reported in 1982 Mh.L.J 607.

II. Rajaram Bhagwati Tiwari and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 290.

III. Maria Philomina Pereira Vs. M/s Rodrigues Construction reported in 1990(1) Mh. L. J. 445.

5. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner.

6. Suit R.C.S. No. 26 of 2021 has been filed challenging the notice dated 21.06.2021. By this notice a demand has been raised by the Municipal Corporation for a sum of Rs. 7,57,203/- seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred in cleaning the nallah on the basis that it was obligation of the petitioner to clean the nala, and as the obligation was not complied by the petitioner, the said work was undertaken by the Municipal Corporation.

7. It is clear that although one of grounds of challenge is to the obligation of the Municipal Corporation by relying upon the provisions of the Corporation Act, what has been challenged in effect is a demand notice which has been issued by the Municipal Corporation seeking to recover the amount. In my view, the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the authority of the corporation and on the lease deed are in fact grounds in support of the challenge to the demand notice. The subject matter of the suit has been valued at Rs. 1,000/- on the ground that the petitioner is claiming declaration and the no