bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1313 OF 1995 PETITION NO. 1313 OF 1995 PETITION NO. 1313 OF 1995 Municipal Corpn. of the City of Pune ... Petitioner v/s Smt.Vijaya Sadashiv Marathe ... Respondent Mr.R.G.Ketkar for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 26TH MARCH, 2008. 26TH MARCH, 2008. 26TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT:: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the rateable value fixed by the Small Causes Court by order dated 12.1.1994. The Small Causes Court has reduced the rateable value from the amount fixed and assessed by the Corporation in respect of a shop. By notice dated 1.3.1989 the petitioner called upon the respondent to pay rateable value for her shop which was rented at the rate of Rs.6300/- on the basis that it would fetch the estimated rent of Rs.616/- per month for the area of 177 sq.ft. 2. Aggrieved by this assessment, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 406 of the B.P.M.C. 2 Act, 1949 being Municipal Appeal No.274 of 1991. The appeal was decided by the Small Causes Court by drawing the conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly fixed the rateable value. The Small Causes Court observed that the rateable value had been fixed by the petitioner taking different rates for different premises owned by various persons in the same building. This, according to the Small Causes Court was not the proper way for assessment of the rateable value. The learned Judge then concluded that the standard rent of Rs.3.48 per sq.ft. was too high and instead, accepted the standard rent to be Rs.0.85 ps. per sq.ft. This was on the basis that Flat No.1, which was a residential accommodation in the same building, was assessed at that rate. 3. After having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, in my view, it would appropriate to set aside the order impugned in this petition. The observations of the learned Judge that rateable value for all the premises in the building, irrespective of the user, should be the same, cannot be accepted. Rateable value of commercial premises will be different from those which are for residential purposes. Apart from this, the rateable value for an accommodation which is rented out would be higher, than if the premises are 3 used by the owner personally. These aspects have not been considered by the Small Causes Court in the proper perspective. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. 5. Municipal Appeal No.274 of 1991 is remanded to the Small Causes Court to be decided within six months from the date of this order. 6. Parties are at liberty to file additional pleadings and documents and also to lead evidence in support of their cases. 7. The Small Causes Court to issue notices of hearing to the parties. (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)