1 sa155-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.155 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.414 OF 2010 M/s.Heer Prabha Co. ..Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent ......... Mr.Bhavik Manek i/b.M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., for appellant. Mr.Vinod Mahadik, for respondent. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr.Bhavik Manek, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Vinod Mahadik, learned counsel for the respondent. 2] This appeal challenges the order dated 18 th February, 2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay below exhibit 7 in Municipal Appeal (Stamp) No.553 of 2008. By that order, the learned trial Judge directed the appellant herein to deposit amount of Rs.33,25,305/- on or before 19 th March, 2010. It was further made clear that if out of the aforesaid amount any amount is shown to have been deposited, the same be adjusted against the arrears. The learned trial Judge further made clear that if the appellant fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated period the appeal will stand dismissed. 2 sa155-10.sxw 3] In support of this appeal, Mr.Manek, learned counsel submitted that the respondent Corporation has arbitrarily fixed the rateable value. He submitted that in the vicinity of the premises, two banks are situate for which the respondent has fixed separate rateable value. He further submitted that the rateable value fixed by the respondent is on the higher side as compared to the other premises let out in the same vicinity. On the other hand, Mr.Mahadik, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 4] It is not in dispute that the property in question was let out to Bharat Co- operative Bank Limited for a period of five years during the period from 30 th October, 2000 to 12 th October, 2005 on the basis of a registered tenancy agreement dated 13 th October, 2005. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to complaint No.NCR/227A/2000-2001, the Investigating Officer has fixed the rateable value in respect of the subject property at Rs.4,02,900/- with effect from 27 th January, 2001 by order dated 5 th July, 2008. It is against this order the appellant has preferred Appeal under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the Act”). Section 217 (2)(d) of the Act lays down that no appeal shall be entertained by the Chief Judge unless in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a rateable value, the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, up to the date of filing of the appeal, has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner. 5] Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned trial Judge 3 sa155-10.sxw directed the appellant to fix the amount of Rs.33,25,305/- after giving credit of Rs.12,50,000/- already deposited by the appellant. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the Investigating Officer has fixed the rateable value arbitrarily and on the higher side, cannot be gone into at this stage. Considering the provisions of Section 217(2)(d) of the Act, I do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and, consequently, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to the costs. 6] Learned counsel for the appellant states that within two weeks from today the appellant shall deposit 50% of the amount of Rs.33,25,305/- with the concerned department and balance 50% amount will be deposited within four weeks from today. He, therefore, prays that four weeks’ time may be granted for depositing Rs.33,25,305/-. Since, the request made by learned counsel for the appellant is reasonable, time to deposit the amount is extended for a period of four weeks from today. 7] In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, no separate orders are necessary in the Civil Application and the same is rejected with no order as to the costs. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]