Municipal Corporation City Of ... vs Fix Fit Steel Craft
2016 Latest Caselaw 2686 Bom

    ssk                                         1                               WP 310/1994-9/6/16       

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                            
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 310 OF 1994




                                                                   
          Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune
          having its office at Shivajingar, Pune-5                       ... Petitioner




                                                                  
                                               vs.
          FIX FIT Steel Craft
          a Registered Partnership Firm through its 




                                                    
          partner Shri. Baburao Vishnu Jawalekar, 
          Aged about 58 yrs. Occu. Business, having
                                    
          his address at Survey No.17/18/1-A/Part-B,
          Kothrud Industrail Estate, Kothrud, 
          Pune 411 029.                                                  ... Respondent
                                   
    Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
    None for the respondent. 
            
         



                                          Coram : Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.
                                          Date     : 9th June, 2016.





    JUDGMENT  :

1. This petition takes exception to the concurrent findings of the Courts below as regards the rateable value of the property belonging to the respondent. The rateable value fixed by the petitioner was of

Rs.24,300/- with effect from 1st December, 1988. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondent had preferred Municipal Appeal No.150 of 1989 before the Court of Small Causes, Pune. By the order dated 22 nd December, 1989 the Court of Small Causes allowed the appeal and fixed the rateable value at Rs.6,700/- with effect from 1 st April, 1989. The

ssk 2 WP 310/1994-9/6/16

petitioner then challenged that order before the District Court by filing

Civil Appeal No.88 of 1991. By the order dated 12 th November, 1992 the District Court dismissed the appeal holding that the judgment and

order passed by the Small Causes Court was correct and proper.

2. Initially the respondent was assessed in respect of the land

at Survey No.17/1B/1A/2 - part B on the basis of it being an open plot of land having annual rateable value at Rs.2,900/-. In the year 1988 the respondent built on the land, a tin shed admeasuring 1200 sq. ft., a

garage and a WC having the total area of 1,459 sq. ft. The petitioner

issued completion certificate in respect of the construction on 19 th November, 1988 and also a special notice for fixation of the rateable

value. The respondent submitted his objection on the same day. The Assessor and the Collector of the petitioner took into consideration the

area of the construction as 1,459 sq. ft., it's use as a workshop with garage and took Rs.2,188/- as the fair and reasonable estimated rent, on

the basis of which, he fixed annual rateable value of the property at Rs.24,300/- with effect from 1st December, 1988.

3. The evidence led before the Court of Small Causes showed that the property was located in an undeveloped area which was located at the distance of 8 km. from the centre of the city and about 400 mts.

from the main road i.e. Karve road. The only access to it was a temporary road. There was no public transport facility for reaching the industrial estate in which the property is situate. There were no street lights provided in the industrial estate and there was also no drainage line provided. The respondent was running a small-scale industry in the

ssk 3 WP 310/1994-9/6/16

shed by doing job work employing seven persons. On the background

of this evidence, the Court of Small Causes took into account the cost of construction at Rs.55,000/- and arrived at the reasonable rent at the

return on the cost of construction at 8% for fixing the rateable value of the property.

4. While confirming the order of the Small Causes Court the District Court took note of four methods for determining the annual letting value namely (i) the comparative or competitive method, (ii) the

profit basis method, (iii) the contractor's method and (iv) the unit

method. It opined that considering the material on record the only way in which the reasonable estimated rent could be arrived at was by the

method of valuing the land and estimating the cost of the construction of the building at the time of first rating and evaluating the reasonable

returns thereon after giving credit for the necessary outgoings. For that purpose, the Court was also required to look into the surroundings of

the property. It observed that the petitioner was unable to point out that this method could not be applicable to the facts of the case or that

there was any other material available on record. It had also taken note of the fact that the construction of the respondent was a new construction and there were no similar sheds or garages in the

surrounding area which could be used for the competitive or comparative method.

5. In my opinion, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The only material that could be available in the matter for arriving at

ssk 4 WP 310/1994-9/6/16

the reasonable estimated rent was produced on record by the

respondent on the basis of which the courts below arrived at the conclusion that the annual rateable value of the property was

Rs.6,700/-. In the absence of any other material indicated by the petitioner the rateable value must be held to be corrected. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

[Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J.]