1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3359 OF 2009 M/s.MAZDA Theatre Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Municipal Corpn. for Gr. Mumbai & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Atul G. Damle for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Malandkar for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, on 29.1.2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the property tax to the tune of Rs.1,18,66,726/- by 31.3.2009. 2 2. The rateable value was revised and a demand was made on the petitioner for depositing the tax from 1.4.1994 i.e. for the period from 1994-95. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed in Municipal Appeal No.86 of 1995. While doing so, the petitioner had deposited the amount as required under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporations Act. While the appeal was pending before the Small Causes Court, an application was filed by the Municipal Corporation for a direction against the petitioner herein to deposit the property tax from 1995-96 onwards. This application has been allowed and the Small Causes Court had directed the deposit of the aforesaid amount during the pendency of the appeal. 3. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, when the appeal period is limited for the year 1994-95, and the liability of payment of property tax was for the year 1994-95, no orders could have been passed by the Small Causes Court directing the petitioner to deposit any amount beyond that period. It is submitted that, in any event, the petitioner has deposited the property tax at the old rate from the year 1995-96 onwards and, 3 therefore, this order has been passed without jurisdiction by the Small Causes Court. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that, from 1995 onwards the petitioner has not made any payment towards the property tax and hence it was necessary to file the application before the Small Causes Court. 5. In my opinion, when the appeal was for a limited period, the Small Causes Court could not have, by an interim order, directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax payable for a subsequent period. If at all the Corporation found that the petitioner had not paid taxes for the subsequent period, it could have raised a demand. The petitioner then could have contested that demand before the proper forum and if it was not satisfied with the order, could have filed against that appeal. By passing the impugned order, the petitioner’s rights have been abrogated. The Corporation cannot circumvent the provisions of law and file an application in a pending municipal appeal for deposit of property taxes for a 4 subsequent period. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 7. In case, the Corporation finds that the petitioner has not paid property tax, which the petitioner is liable to pay, the Corporation may raise a demand and secure the tax in accordance with law. 8. Writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. 9. Municipal Appeal No.86 of 1995 to be disposed of within eight weeks from today. ..... 5