Law Web: Whether court can decide municipal appeal without calling assessment Records from Municipal Corporation?

Appeal under section 406 of the BPMC Act being a statutory Appeal,

without calling for the Records of assessment from the Municipal Corporation

neither the Small Causes Court nor the Court of 7th Additional District Judge

could have decided the same. Provisions of the Rules particularly Rule 7 of

Property Rules framed under the BPMC Act show that the Annual letting value is

to be determined after ascertaining the reasonable rent on which the premises are

expected to be let out. How the reasonable rent is to be determined is not very

clear and none of the Courts have looked into it .Whether any such reasonable

rent has been worked out and thereafter Annual letting value was reached is also

not clear.

The Small Causes Court ought to have called for

Assessment Records from the Municipal Corporation. Perusing the same in the

light of Relevant Rules dealing with determination of reasonable rent and Annual

letting value and then determined whether the assessment order dated 20.6.1986

was in accordance in law or not ? The statutory Appeal could not have been

determined without such application of mind and without going through the basic

record.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 1996

Trilok Baburao Deshpande. Vs. Municipal Corpn of Gr.City of Pune

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J

DATED : 23.11.2012
Citation:2013(1) MHLJ 794

1. Heard Mr.Khaladkar for the Petitioner and Mr.Khadapkar for the

Respondent-Corporation.

2. The matter was heard for sometime yesterday and came to be adjourned

to today for delivery of Judgment.

3. The Petitioner-landlady has questioned the revised assessment of her

property under section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act.

That Appeal was allowed by the Small causes court Pune on 30.6.1989.

Aggrieved thereby the Respondent-Municipal Corporation filed further Appeal

before the Additional Sessions Judge Pune. That Civil Appeal No.882 of 1989

has been allowed on 22.9.1995. The landowner thereafter has filed the present

Petition.

4. On 23.1.1996 this Court has issued Rule in the matter and refused to

grant any interim relief. Apart from other contentions, learned counsel for the

Appellant has urged that the Appeal filed was statutory and the Small Causes

Court ought to have called for the records of assessment from the Municipal

Commissioner. The assessment order dated 20.6.1986 was passed by the

Municipal Corporation and without perusing the relevant records the Appeals

could not have been decided. In the alternative and without prejudice it is

submitted that the said Court on the strength of the material produced before it

has rightly found that there was no material change warranting hike in

assessment. The landlady occupying five rooms on the first floor for her

residence shifted to the ground floor as the tenant occupying the ground floor had

vacated. Instead the first floor rooms were put to use as lodge. Submissions is

thus there is only inter-change of user and floors. It is further pointed out that the

second floor was newly constructed and in the light of the assessment of ground

and the first floor, the learned Small Causes Court has correctly determined its

annual letting value.

5. Learned counsel submits that in this situation, the Judgment dated

30.6.1989 called for no interference.

6. Mr.Khadapkar submitted that as Appeal against the order of assessment

dated 29.6.1986 was filed by the Petitioner, burden was upon the Petitioner to

demonstrate that the assessment was arbitrary and exhorbitant and that the

Appellant could have summoned the record of the Municipal Corporation He

pointed out that assessment or its Revision till 1985 is not in dispute. In the light

of the undisputed position his submissions is that the 7th Additional District

Judge,has correctly appreciated the controversy. The vacation by the tenant

occupying on the ground floor for residential purposes and its consequential

occupation by the landlady needed a Revision of assessment of that portion. Five

rooms on the first floor till then occupied by the landlady for her residence have

been put to use for business of the landlady and that change also necessitated the

Revision. The second floor has been newly constructed and therefore that floor

also needed assessment and hence the entire building has been rightly reassessed

in 1985. The Court of Small causes has erroneously ignored these three important

events and in any case has confused event 1 and 2 as only inter-change or

exchange. He relies upon the Extract of the Book maintained by the Municipal

Corporation and annexed with the Petition both the Annexures A-1 to urge that

perusal of the rate or mechanism employed therein is sufficient to negate the

challenge raised in the Petition. In the alternative and without prejudice to that

those submissions he sought an adjournment to produce the relevant

assessment records of Municipal Corporation.

7. I find that a perusal of Assessment records of the Municipal Corporation

for the first time by this Court in this jurisdiction will not be proper and of no

assistance. Appeal under section 406 of the BPMC Act being a statutory Appeal,