LexM.K. PALIA & SONS PVT. LTD. versus MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S:C.R. 808 A M.K. PALIA & SONS PVT. LTD. y v.· MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 5242 of 208) B AUGUST 26, 2008 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ~.,._ Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Increase in rateable value ':'"" Challenge to, by lessee of Mumbai Port c Trust after 23 years - Held: Not justified - Rateable value of the property was revised from Rs.20, 1001- p.a. to Rs.2!5,6451 - in 1984~85 on account of increase in rent by Mumbai Port Trust - Increase of Rs. 5, 5451- after 23 years is not exorbitant - . More so, lessee continued to pay increased rateable value D without any demur ti/11999 - Lessee by filing frivolous petition should not get undue advantage over all other 599 lessees, " 1 who have been regularly paying taxes within the prescribed time - Thus, lessee directed to pay the entire outstanding -....;. amount with fnteresf@ 10% p.a. from the date when the E amount became due with penalty and fees towards notice of demand ~ Delay/Laches; There are 600 lessees of the Mumbai Port Trust. Appellant is.one of the lessees of the commerc.ial premises in the prominent area of Mumbai. Appellant filed writ F petition after 23 years challenging the fixation of the rateable value by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in t- year 1982. The 599 lessees have been paying the rateable value fixed by the respondent-Corporation. Appellant has regularly paid the rateable value fixed by the Corporation G till 1999. The Division Bench of High Court held that there was no justification in approaching the court after a lapse + of 23 years. Hence the present appeal. ·- - Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 808 M.K. PALIA & SONS PVT. LTD. v. MUMBAI 809 MUNICIPAL CORP. & ANOTHER ---.. HELD: 1.1 The submission of the appellant that they A ... are entitled to seek review of the rateable value on the I basis of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia 's case is totally devoid ~ of any merit. [Para 16] [818 B] Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of B Mumbai and Anr. 2004 (3) SCC 214 - distinguished. ~ 1.2 The High Court correctly observed that it was not a case of unjust enrichment made under the mistake of law by the respondent. [Para 18] [818-D] Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and c Ors. 1997 (5) SCC 536 - referred to. 1.3 The appellant's property No. 2797(1) being used for commercial purpose was assessed on 31st March, 1961 at the rateable value of Rs.20,100/- per annum. The D premises was assessed as land with C.I. Shed having an t area of 2860 sq. ft. assessed at the rate of Rs.8/- per brass ~ and remaining land for storage was assessed at the estimated rent of Rs.1,766/-. The property was, therefore, assessed at a rateable value of Rs.20, 100/- per annum E with effect from 31.3.1961. The rateable value of the property was revised to Rs.25,645/- in the year 1984-85 on account of increase in rent by the owner. There has been increase of Rs.5,545/- in the rateable value after about 23 years, which cannot be said to be exorbitant by any F stretch of imagination. The rateable value for 2006-07 is -.f still Rs.25,645/-. The appellant continued to pay increased rateable value without any demur till 1999. The complaint for the first time was filed on 12.11.2005. However, the appellant has not paid property tax from the year 2000 till December, 2007. The total amount of Rs.5,86,185/- is G + outstanding by way of taxes an amount of Rs,64,216/- by -,, -· way of penalty and Rs.750/- towards fees for notice of demand. Admittedly, these amounts have not been paid by the appellant. [Paras 23 and 24] (819-G-H 820-A-D] H . -- 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A 1.4 The. appellant by filing a frivolous petition should not get undue advantage over all other 599 lessees, who have been regularly paying the taxes within the. prescribed time. Therefore, the appellant is directed to pay the entire outstanding amount' with 10% interest per annum from B the date when the amount became due and payable along with penalty and-the fees towards notice of demand being charged by the respondent. In case the amount is not paid by the appellant within two months time, then respondent no. 1 would ·be entitled to get..15% int~rest on the c outstanding taxes from the.date when it becomes due and payable and would als'o be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. [Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.