Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. vs National Rayon Corporation Ltd.

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—Challenge in this Appeal preferred u/s 411 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (''BPMC Act'' for short) is to the judgment and order dated 11.1.1984 rendered in Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 790 of 1983 by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, whereby Gross Ratable Value (''GRV'' for short) of the premises bearing Final Plot No. 98/3/4/1 in Ellisbridge Ward No. A/1, which was initially fixed by the Appellant Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation at Rs. 1,76,683/ - for the period 1.8.1982 to 31.3.1983 came to be reduced to Rs. 51,624/ - by partly allowing the said MV Appeal 790/1983, which was preferred u/s 406 of the BPMC Act by the RespondentNational Rayon Corporation Limited.

Learned Advocate Mr. J.R. Nanavati for the Appellant Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court is contrary to law and facts on record and that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly taking into consideration relevant factors, which are required to be considered while ascertaining the GRV of any immovable property. It is further submitted that perusing the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, complete reliance was placed upon a judgment and order dated 15.12.1982 rendered in MV Appeal No. 147 of 1980, but the said judgment can never to be said to be a comparable instance in the sense that the property, which was subject matter in the said Appeal was situated in different area and there is nothing that the said property as well as the property in question were similar in all other features namely area and locality, etc. Therefore, it is submitted that in the instant case, learned Judge of the Small Causes Court has not arrived at the conclusion on the basis of any just and convincing evidence on record. Therefore it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court may be set aside by allowing this Appeal.

Per contra Mr. V.C. Desai, learned Advocate representing the Respondent submitted that in the instant case the assessment period is prior to 1.8.1984, and therefore, as per the amendment carried in Section 2(1A)(aa) of the BPMC Act, while fixing the GRV of the property in question, learned Judge of the Small Causes Court was required to consider the standard rent of the premises, and accordingly, for fixing the standard rate of the premises comparable order of the competent court is the best comparable instance and accordingly the learned Judge of the Smalls Causes Court has rightly relied upon the judgment and order rendered in MV Appeal No. 1487 of 1980 while fixing the standard rent of the premises in question for the purpose of ascertaining the GRV of the property. It is therefore submitted that the Appeal may be dismissed.

We have considered the record and proceedings of MV Appeal 790/1983 in context with the submissions made by the rival side.

Considering the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, it clearly transpires that GRV of the property in question was fixed at Rs. 51,624/ - relying upon the judgment and order dated 15.12.1982 rendered in MV Appeal No. 1487 of 1980 by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad wherein the property known as Vyapari Mahamandal Building, wherein the standard rent @ 0.35p per sq. ft. was fixed. In the instant case, learned Judge of the Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that Rs. 2/ - per sq. ft. can be said to be appropriate rate, and accordingly, considering the area of the property in question, being 2151 sq. ft. and considering Rs. 2/ - per st. ft., it was held that the monthly standard rent can be said to be Rs. 4302/ - and accordingly, the ratable value was fixed at Rs. 51,624/ -. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the property in question is situated at 2nd floor of a Building known as Bhagwati Chambers, which was situated in Ward No. A/1 in the area Ellisbridge, whereas the subject matter of the property in MV Appeal No. 1487 of 1980 was a building known as Vyapari Mahamandal Building, which was situated at Ashram Road. Moreover, perusing the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, nothing emerges as to how and in what manner both the properties namely the property in question and the property which was subject matter in MV Appeal No. 1487 of 1980 could be said to be similar or comparable, so far as locality, area and other relevant features, required to be taken into consideration while fixing the standard rent are concerned.

However, during the course of arguments Mr. J.R. Nanavaty, learned Advocate representing the Appellant AMC raised the contentions about locus of the Respondent to prefer Appeal u/s 406 of the BPMC Act as well as right of the tenant to prefer such Appeal. However, in light of the above discussion, when it transpires that the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, without examining the aspect as to whether the judgment and order rendered in MV Appeal No. 1487 of 1980 can be made a base in the instant case for determining the standard rent of the property in question or not, held that said judgment provides comparable instance for fixation of standard rent of premises in question, and therefore, MV Appeal 790/1983 deserves to be remanded to the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad with direction to decide the said Appeal in accordance with law afresh after giving opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence. In that view of the matter, both the sides shall be at liberty to raise their contentions regarding law and facts before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. Therefore, in this judgment, it is not necessary for this Court to decide the other contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant AMC regarding locus of the Respondent tenant to prefer Appeal u/s 406 of the BPMC Act, etc.

In the result, the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside and MV Appeal 790/1983 is required to be remanded back to the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad with necessary direction.

For the foregoing reasons, Appeal succeeds and accordingly, it is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 11.1.1984 rendered in MV Appeal 790/1983 by the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. MV Appeal 790/1983 is remanded to the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad with direction to decide the said Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence and to raise necessary contentions on the question of law and fact and to decide afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

R and P of MV Appeal No. 790 of 1983 shall be sent back to the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad forthwith.