(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. Present appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2001 passed by learned Small Cause Judge, Ahmedabad in M.V.A. No.1963 of 1998, whereby the GRV of the premises is fixed at Rs.2254/- for the assessment year 1997-98.
2. Short facts are that the officers of the Corporation had made assessment of the premises, bearing Survey No.224-GF, situated at Ward Jamalpur-2, by fixing GRV at Rs.13,541/- for the assessment year 1997-98. The respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment preferred the appeal before the Small Cause Court, being M.V.A. No.1963 of 1998. The lower Court at the conclusion of the appeal, passed the above said judgment and order. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Jirga Jhaveri appearing for the appellant. The respondent is served but none has appeared for him.
4. The only aspect required to be considered is that if the evidence has come on record showing that the actual rent or standard rent of the premises is of particular amount, could the officers of the Corporation assess GRV at a higher amount in absence of any evidence led to show that the contractual rent or standard rent was not genuine or in collusion to take benefit of the municipal tax. Similar aspect came to be considered in First Appeal No.354 of 2003 decided by us today and it has been observed as under:-
“4. We have considered the record and proceedings. It appears that the rent receipt and the rent note had come on record at Exh.5/3, showing actual rent of Rs.223/- per month + taxes. It is not the case of the Corporation that the rent agreement was not in existence or was bogus or not genuine. If the contractual rent was Rs.223/- per months plus taxes and the learned Judge has assessed the GRV on the basis of the actual rent of the premises, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the learned Judge in fixing the GRV. Under the circumstances, the appeal is meritless and hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.”
5. The same view deserves to be taken in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed error. Under the circumstances, the appeal is meritless. Hence, the same dismissed with no order as to cost.
6. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the lower Court.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) omkar (C.L. SONI, J.)