Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal is filed by the appellants thereby challenging the judgment and order passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in Municipal Appeal No. 311 of 2002 on 26th October, 2007.

1 Of 17 FA1448 judgment_2012

2. The original appellants/respondents herein are the owners of the property described in paragraph 1 of the Memo of Appeal filed before the Court of Small Causes. It is the case of the respondents herein that they have paid the property taxes as per the bills received from the Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay from time to time and they have paid last tax bill for the period ending 31 st March, 2002. It is further case of the respondents that they received a letter dated 4 th March, 2002 addressed to Ratanchand Nemchand Vakilwala and others from the original respondents/appellants at their residential address. It was mentioned in the said letter that special notices under sections 162(2) and 167 of M.M.C. Act have been pasted on the property of the respondents on 4th March, 2002 and rateable value of the property involved in the appeal is fixed at the rate of Rs.17,940/- n.p.a. w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001. It was stated in the said letter that if the original appellants wish to complain against the increase in rateable value they can do so in writing within 15 days from the date of pasting under Section 163 of the said Act. It is further case of the respondents that they received the said letter in the second week of March, 2002 and by their advocate's letter dated 15 th March, 2002 they informed the Assessing Authority of the Municipal Corportion that Ratanchand Nemchand Vakilwala expired in or about 1987 and the Corporation cannot increase the rateable value without any material and reasons.

4. The respondents/original appellants, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the acts of the Municipal Corporation increasing the rateable value without following the proper procedure, filed the appeal 3 Of 17 FA1448 judgment_2012 before the Court of Small Causes on various grounds. The main grievance of the respondents was to the effect that they have not received notices under section 162(2) and 167 of MMC Act and the Corporation have not followed the procedure laid down for increasing the rateable value. The Municipal Corporation has not given personal hearing to the respondents before the rateable value of the property involved in the appeal is increased.

5. The appellants/original respondents appeared and filed the written statement contesting the appeal before the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. They admitted that the original appellants, who are the owners of the property involved in the appeal and they had sent a letter dated 4th March, 2002 to Ratanchand Nemchand Vakilwala which was received by the original appellants. They also admitted that the Municipal Corporation has increased the rateable value of the property involved in the appeal at the rate of Rs.17,940/- n.p.a. w.e.f. 1 st April, 2001 and have issued two bills dated 11 th March, 2002 on the basis of increased rateable value and called upon the original appellants to pay the difference of tax amount for the period mentioned in the said bills.

The Municipal Corporation has admitted the receipt of the letters dated 15th March, 2002 and 21st March, 2002 from the original appellants.

However, the Municipal Corporation has denied that they have increased the rateable value of the property involved in the appeal 4 Of 17 FA1448 judgment_2012 without following the procedure laid down in M.M.C. Act. They further denied that the respondents were not served with the notices under sections 162(2) and 167 of M.M.C. Act before the rateable value was increased. They further denied that the original appellants did not get an opportunity of hearing before the rateable value was increased.