Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These three Revisional Applications arise out of appeals to the Magistrate against Municipal assessment for the purpose of consolidated house tax. The order made by the Magistrate, Mahad, has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge at Kolaba. The Applications are in respect of assessments for the years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, respectively. The original appellant before the Magistrate is the Divisional Controller, Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay, and is now the opponent and the original opponent before the Magistrate and now the petitioner is in all cases the Municipality, Mahad, governed by the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901. I will employ their original nomenclature to avoid confusion.

He also pointed out the disparity between the valuations arrived at by the different modes by the Assessment Committee and, therefore, he adopted the "Contractor's Test". The learned Magistrate has lost sight of one principle and that is what would a tenant pay looking to all the potentialities of the business that would be attracted by his having the canteen at the place or the stalls in these premises. What appears, without these considerations to be extortionate rent, might appear to be a perfectly reasonable amount of rent, which any tenant, apart from the particular tenant, would be prepared to pay. According to the terms of the agreement between the parties, no one else was allowed to vend his refreshments in these premises. Any contractor, who had his canteen in the premises would necessarily make very large profits in view of the fact that passengers would have to buy all their needs from that canteen. It also appears from the judgments that the bus stand is situated about half a mile away from the village of Mahad. No passenger could, therefore, possibly think of going out and taking refreshment at any other place. The question is not what to the Court would appear to be reasonable rent for particular premises without these advantages but what any tenant expecting to utilise the premises for the purpose for which they are being used with all their advantages and disadvantages would reasonably pay for them. The very fact that for the first 3 years the contractor paid the compensation of Rs. 5,225 per year for the use of the canteen and Rs. 6,000 per year plus taxes for the next 2 years with option to continue would show the extent of the business and the profit for which the amount of compensation is paid. This amount is not paid by the tenant for his necessity in the sense that he is without a living and is compelled to pay this amount. What he has paid and what any other person would pay is due to the expectation of very high returns as profits. The learned Magistrate, therefore, cannot be right when he says that the rent is extortionate so far as the canteen and the stalls are concerned and, therefore, he could justifiably resort to the "Contractor's Test", which is after all an indirect method of arriving at the value. Similar would be the consideration even with regard to the ladies' room and the waiting room. Passengers pay special charges to the appellant for these rooms. These rooms also, therefore, earn direct compensation for their use and if after taking into account what is produced by these rooms the Municipal authority fixed a higher annual letting value for these rooms, it cannot be regarded improper. These set of rooms and stalls and canteen cannot be said to be at a par with the office rooms, which consist of the parcel room, the Controller's room, the Cashier's room and the booking office. This ground, therefore, also for not accepting the valuation made by the Municipal Assessment Committee is erroneous.