Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad vs Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.

Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 17.1.1989 passed by the learned Small Causes Judge in M.V. Appeal No. 17133/1988, whereby he has fixed the Gross Ratable Value of the premises at Rs. 5,783/- for the year 1988-89.

The relevant facts are that the Respondent Bank, who was tenant, had the liability to pay the Municipal Tax. The Corporation assessed the GRV of the premises at Rs. 59,388/- and issued the bill accordingly on 31.8.1988. It came on record that the premises was rented with the monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-. The Respondent being aggrieved by the assessment of GRV and issuance of the bill of the Corporation, preferred the M.V. Appeal No. 17133 of 1988 before the learned Small Causes Court. The learned Judge at the conclusion of the appeal passed the aforesaid judgment and order. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

We have heard Mr. Shelat, learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant. The Respondent is served, but none appears on its behalf. We have considered the Record and Proceedings and we have also considered the judgment and reasons recorded by the lower Court.

The pertinent aspect in the present appeal is that at para 2 of the Judgment, the learned Judge has recorded that the appeal premises are rented to the Appellant with monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/- and taxes to be paid to the Corporation. In spite of the aforesaid aspects having brought to the notice of the lower Court, it has relied upon its earlier decision, whereby GRV of the premises was fixed at Rs. 5,783/-. In our view, when the actual rent of the premises was Rs. 3,500/- per month plus Municipal Taxes, the said aspect was required to be taken into consideration by the lower Court and thereafter only the GRV could have been decided.

Mr. Shelat, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Ahmedabad Education Society reported in 1999 (2) GLH 950 for contending that while fixing GRV, the actual rent was required to be taken into consideration.

In view of the aforesaid we find that it would be just and proper to remand the matter to the lower Court for consideration on the aspect about the effect of the actual monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/- and the taxes while considering GRV for the Municipal Taxes. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of the lower Court is quashed and set aside with a direction that M.V. Appeal No. 17133 of 1988 shall be considered afresh and the decision shall be rendered by the learned Small Causes Judge as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

CROSS OBJECTION No. 102 OF 2010:

In view of the aforesaid view taken by us in the First Appeal No. 1684 of 1990, Cross Objection No. 102 of 2010 shall also stand disposed of accordingly with no relief to the Respondent.