1 cra132-06 Rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2006 Pune Municipal Corporation .. Petitioner V/s. M/s. Bhagat General Stores .. Respondent Mr. Rajdeep Khadapkar for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : OCTOBER 22, 2010. P.C. This Civil Revision Application challenges the Judgment and order dated 25th March, 2003, passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1998 arising from the Judgment and order dated 27th August, 1996 passed by the Court of Small Causes Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 123 of 1993. By the impugned Judgment and order, the learned District Judge, Pune allowed the Appeal thereby fixing the annual rateable value in respect of the premises of the respondent at Rs. 3600/- instead of Rs. 17500/- as fixed by the petitioner. 2 cra132-06 2. The respondent is the lessee in respect of plot No. 108 bearing 3000 square feet of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.). In the year 1992, he constructed a godown shed thereon admeasuring 1300 square feet with a potmala. The structure was completed in October 1992. The petitioner corporation by its order dated 22nd March, 1993, passed after hearing the respondent, fixed rateable value of the godown shed at Rs. 17500/- with effect from 1st October, 1992. Being aggrieved by the rateable value fixed, the respondent preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. 142 of 1992 to the Court of Small Causes at Pune. By the Judgment and order dated 27th August, 1996 the appeal was dismissed holding that the rateable value fixed by the applicant was correct and reasonable. The respondent then preferred an appeal to the District Court, Pune vide Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1998. The District Court, Pune by its impugned order dated 25th March, 2003 allowed the Civil Appeal and fixed the annual rateable value at Rs. 3600/- with effect from 1st October, 1992. 3. Mr. Khadapkar, the learned counsel for the applicant 3 cra132-06 submits that fixation of rateable value at Rs. 3600/- by the District Court, Pune is arbitrary, and is not supported by any reasons. 4. The challenge by the respondent to the rateable value fixed by the petitioner was solely based on comparison with the rateable value fixed for the structure on plot No. 109. This structure on plot No. 109 was acquired by the respondent under the agreement dated 14th September, 1985, from one Ranchhoddas and others. The Structure acquired was constructed in the year 1982 and its rateable value fixed in that year as of Rs. 2600/-. The respondent contended before both the lower appellate courts that as there was no difference in the size of the construction on the two plots of land, the purpose of construction and its use there could be no difference in the rateable value fixed for the two properties. The trial Court rejected the plea of the respondent holding that no comparison was possible in view of the long time gap separating the two constructions. The rateable value fixed for the structure on plot No. 109 in the year 1982 could not be taken as correct rateable 4 cra132-06 value for the structure constructed ten years later in the year 1992. The Small Causes Court also rejected the claim and evidence of the respondent that cost of construction of the structure was between Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 55,000/-. 5. Mr. Khadapkar submits that without considering the above aspects of the matter the learned District Judge at paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment merely states that annual rateable value of the taxable premises at Rs. 3600/- would be just and proper. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no basis whatsoever stated therein for rejecting the rateable values claimed by both the sides i.e. Rs. 2600/- claimed by the respondent and Rs. 17550/- fixed by the corporation and fixing the same as Rs. 3600/- per year. Such an order is patently perverse and cannot be sustained. 6. Mr. Khadapkar draws attention to one more factor. The rateable value for the construction of plot No. 109 was fixed, in accordance with the policy decision of the corporation dated 26th July, 1980. As per the said policy, the corporation had 5 cra132-06 deliberately fixed lower rateable value for the structures on the land leased by Agricultural Produce Market Committee considering that the higher assessment would hamper the activities of the assesses, traders, market committee and the farmers for whom the land was reserved. Later in the year 1985, the corporation revised its policy decision vide a resolution dated 7th October, 1985 to reopen the cases and assess the same on the cost of construction basis. This change in the policy has been disregarded by the learned District Judge. The respondent has subsequently admitted at ground (a) of its appeal memo before the District Court, that the costs of the construction incurred for the structure on plot No. 108 was between Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 1,40,000/-. 6. In the circumstances, the Revision Application is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 25th March, 2003 is set aside. The Appeal remanded to the District Court, Pune for fresh hearing and disposal. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)