*1* wpl.1797.11.sxw kps HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Lodging) NO.1797 OF 2011 Moiz S. Rajkotwala and another. ..Petitioners -Versus- The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others. ..Respondents ........ Ms.N.V.Sanglikar, for the Petitioners. Ms.T.Puranik, for the Respondent/BMC. ......... CORAM:- S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date: 29th August, 2011. P.C.:- 1 This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the warrant of attachment, copy of which is at Annexure- M to this petition, dated 10.02.2011 seeking to recover the property taxes in the sum of Rs.9,52,799/- from the Petitioners. 2 Mrs.Sanglikar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Petitioners are co-owners of Unit No.119 of Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Co-operative Society at Andheri (East), Mumbai. The Petitioners' complaint against increase in rateable value has been rejected on the ground that it is time barred. It is contended that no notice under section 162(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short, “MMC Act”) was served in the manner prescribed under section 484 of the MMC Act. Thus, the rateable value is revised without following the principles prescribed in law and without considering the complaint of the Petitioners dated 16.04.2009. Thus, the Petitioners had no opportunity to dispute the legality of levy as well as assessment and valuation. It is *2* wpl.1797.11.sxw submitted that the premises are self occupied and they have been used by the Petitioners for their own business. The Petitioners formed a private limited company, namely, United New Designs & Projects Pvt.Ltd.. This is duly registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. The premises are assessed for payment of the property tax and prior to 01.04.2008 the ratable value for the purpose of computation of property tax was Rs. 58,375/-. In paragraph 3.3 of this Writ Petition, this is what is stated:- “3.3 On or about 07.03.2009 a notice under section 155 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was handed over to the peon sitting in the said premises. The said notice u/s 155 dated 07.03.2009 was addressed to M/s Turnkey Projects Services calling upon them to give the dimensions and the rent of the premises in their occupation. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit B is a copy of the said notice dt.07.03.2009. However, the said form was not filled in and returned to the Respondents since the premises are not let to the said Turnkey Projects Services or to any other person. Petitioners are in possession and occupation of the said premises. The Turnkey Projects Services are not the licensees of the Petitioners, but were engaged by the Petitioners company as Project Consultants and for outsourcing the works, filling in tenders, giving sub-contracts liasoning with Government, Municipal Corporation etc. on behalf of the Petitioners. Petitioners are in fact paying the said Turnkey Projects for the work they are doing for the Petitioners. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit C is a copy of the extract of Leger Account of the Petitioner Company showing payments made to M/s Turnkey Projects Services. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit C-1 is a copy of the letter dt.01.04.2008 welcoming the said Irfan Goriawala of Turnkey Projects to the Petitioners’ organization. And hereto and marked Exhibit C-2 is a copy of the letter dated 27.02.2009 allowing Mr.Irfan Goriawala to operate from the Petitioners office premises. There was/is no question of any agreement for leave and licence being entered into or payment of any compensation or license fees by M/s Turnkey Projects Services to the Petitioners. As no rent or compensation *3* wpl.1797.11.sxw was being paid to the Petitioners the said return form u/s 155 was not filled and delivered to the K/West Ward Office. The said Turnkey Projects Services and the Petitioners were under the bonafide impression that the form was required to be filled up only if the premises were let. Since the premises were unlet and the Petitioners are not receiving any rent, the return form was not filled and returned to the Respondent No.4.” 3 In these circumstances, the Petitioners were surprised to receive a notice fixing the assessment charges and calling upon the Petitioners to pay the same. Further, there is warrant of attachment seeking to recover the alleged outstanding amount by coercive measures. It is submitted that the Petitioners are without any remedy inasmuch as the complaint under the subject provision is not entertained and now even this Writ Petition is being objected on the ground that there is alternate remedy which is efficacious and the same has not been resorted to. 4 After hearing both sides at some length, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners have an alternate equally efficacious remedy in the present facts and circumstances, of an appeal under section 217 of the MMC Act. All arguments that have been canvassed before me and the documents that are relied upon, can be placed before the Appellate Authority. It is not as if the Appellate Authority cannot examine the contentions regarding the levy, so also, the assessment of tax. The apprehension expressed in paragraph 16 of this Writ Petition that the complaint itself is rejected on the ground of delay, would not enable the Petitioners to file an appeal, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Now the assessment is finalized and the bills have been raised and non payment of which has resulted in issuance of the warrant of attachment. In these circumstances, based on assessment and subsequent *4* wpl.1797.11.sxw developments, the Petitioners can very well file an appeal under section 217 of the MMC Act. 5 To enable the Petitioners to avail of the alternate remedy and to raise all contentions and particularly those incorporated in this Writ Petition, it is directed that for a period of eight weeks from today, no steps in pursuance of the warrant of attachment shall be taken by the Corporation against the Petitioners. If an appeal is filed within this period, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide it without raising any objection to the delay and limitation, so also, its maintainability because of rejection of the complaint. Since further steps have been taken by the Corporation, all contentions in relation to the levy, assessment and valuation of tax can be raised in the appeal. Keeping open all contentions, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)