JUDGMENT :

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. Since the questions of law involved in all the captioned appeals are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, we treat the First Appeal No.6140 of 2019 as the lead matter.

3. This appeal under Section-411 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 [for short ‘The Act, 1949’] is at the instance of the owner of a premises situated at Sharda Society, Opposite Bank of India, New Sharda Mandir School Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad dated 12.04.2019 in the Municipal Valuation Appeal No.138 of 2008, by which, the Small Cause Court dismissed the appeal upholding the assessment of tax by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:-

2.1 The appellants herein preferred the Municipal Valuation Appeal in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad against the assessment of the Municipality Property Tax for the assessment year 2007-08 for the subject premises referred to above and in context with the some bills issued by the Corporation bearing Nos.2921 and 2922 respectively. It appears from the materials on record that the subject tenement is a one storied house. The total area of the entire tenement is 171.65 sq. mtrs. The first floor of the tenement admeasures 80.84 sq. mtrs., whereas, the ground floor ad-measures 90.81 sq.mtrs.

2.2 It is not in dispute that the first floor of the tenement is being used for residential purpose and the ground floor is being used as an office. The appellant before us namely, Hareshkumar Ramanlal Shah appears to be a practicing advocate.

2.3 The dispute between the parties arose when the Corporation issued two separate bills; one for the ground floor portion being used as a non-residential premises and the other one for the first floor of the premises, which is being used for the residential purpose.

2.4 It is the case of the appellants that the entire tenement is a residential premises and just because the ground floor is being used as an office, the same cannot be separated and treated as a nonresidential premises for the purpose of property tax. The Small Cause Court adjudicated the dispute and took the view that as the ground floor portion of the tenement is larger in size compared to the first floor and as the ground floor is being utilized as an office, it is permissible for the Corporation to treat the same as a nonresidential premises and assessed the tax accordingly.

3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Small Cause Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein, the appellants are here before this Court with the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. S.P. Majmudar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Kalpana Raval, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation.

5. Mr. Majmudar would submit that the impugned order passed by the Court below could be termed as erroneous as one residential premises located in a residential society could not have been bifurcated into two parts i.e. (1) residential premises so far as the first floor is concerned; and (2) non-residential premises so far as the ground floor is concerned. Mr. Majmudar would submit that it hardly matters whether the area of the ground floor is larger than that of the first floor. Essentially, it is a residential premises wherein a part of the same is being used as an advocate’s office.

6. Mr. Majmudar further submitted that the issue in question is no longer res-integra in view of the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Kanubhai Shantilal Pandya and others Vs. Vadodara Municipal Corporation and others reported in 2016 SCC Online Guj. 6524. Mr. Majmudar also tried to develop an argument by drawing a fine distinction between the professional activity