IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3009 OF 2000 Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune having its Head Office at Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 …Petitioner Versus Satishkumar Satyanaran Agarwal aged about 42 years, Occupation - Business, residing at 199, Ganesh Peth, Pune -411 002 …Respondent .........…

Mr. Abhishek Roy, Ms. Sweta Shah i/by Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner None for the Respondent .........…

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.

RESERVED ON : 16^th OCTOBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 27^th NOVEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to set-aside the Judgment and Order dated 3^rd April 1999 passed by learned XIIth Additional District Judge Pune, at Pune in Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1993 filed against the Judgment and order dated 2^nd April 1993 passed by the Learned Small Causes Judge, Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 97 of 1990 whereby the Learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal preferred under Section 411 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (the “BPMC Act”) by the Petitioner thereby confirming the Judgment and order dated 2^nd April 1993 passed by the Learned Small Causes Judge, Pune whereby the rateable value of Rs.9300/- with effect from 01/05/1985 fixed by the Petitioner Corporation in respect of property leased to the Respondent viz. Plot No. 345 admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. situated at Market Yard Gultekdi, Pune (the “said premises”) was set aside and re-fixed at Rs.2600/- with effect from

01/04/1990.

2. The background facts are that in and around 1976, the said premises was allotted to the Respondent by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The Petitioner Corporation had fixed the rateable value in the year 1980 at a concessional rate by giving concession for a period of three years i.e. till 1983, as the lessees in the market area were to establish their trade activities at the new place and under different conditions.

3. After the concessional period of three years was over, the Municipal Commissioner ordered to reopen and assess the cases on the basis of the costs of construction. Pursuant thereto, orders were passed depending upon the area of the godown and number of godowns.

4. The Petitioner in consultation with the Chairman of Market Committee by its order No. MC/GOH/162 dated 07^th October 1985 fixed the rateable value in respect of single godown admeasuring 1500 sq.ft. including the mezzanine floor at Rs. 9,300/-.

5. In the year 1985-86 the Respondent carried out R.C.C. construction of godown admeasuring 1300 sq. ft. and mezzanine floor admeasuring 200 sq. ft. on the said premises. The Petitioner Corporation initiated Case No. A/119/86/87 in respect of construction carried out by the Respondent and issued Special Notice to the Respondent proposing to fix the rateable value at Rs.30,600/- with effect from 01/05/1985.

6. On 27^th July 1988 after hearing the authorized representative of the Respondent and taking standard rent at Rs.1.75 per sq. ft. and further considering earlier case no. 265/84/85 the Petitioner Corporation fixed the rateable value in respect of the said premises at Rs.9,300/- with effect from 01/05/1985.

7. It is stated that on or about 19^th April 1990, the Respondent after receipt of tax bill No. 74002 dated 10^th April 1990 challenged the same and also the rateable value fixed on 27^th July 1988 by filing Municipal Appeal No. 97 of 1990 under Section 406 of the BPMC Act.

The Petitioner resisted the appeal by filing its reply.

8. The Respondent examined himself and one other witness being Mr. Sanjay Goyal who held the Plot No. 646-647 in Market Yard on lease from the Agricultural Market Produce Committee who in his examination-in-chief stated that the construction of the premises held by him and that of Respondent was made at one and the same time and the nature of construction is also similar and the rateable value of both plots with structure is Rs