(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This appeal is filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation calling in question the legality of the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Municipal Valuation Appeal No.2060/98.
2. The respondent herein was the owner of immovable property described as Tenement No.7223-9311- 00-0001 situated on survey No.548/1/TF, Ellisbridge-B ward, Ahmedabad. For collection of municipal tax for the year 1997-98, the Municipal Authorities adopted gross ratable value at Rs.60,788. The respondent herein aggrieved by such valuation approached the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad filing the above- mentioned appeal. In the appeal, it was contended that the property was self-occupied property, previously GRV adopted was Rs.13,680, the property is situated in the third floor of the building and occupies area of 183.90 sq. meters, no improvements or additions were made in the property and despite which the authorities wrongly recorded that the additional construction was carried out and the constructed area of the property was 2135 sq. meters. The appellant thus contended that the valuation adopted by the Municipal Authorities was excessive.
3. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, before the court below, written statement was filed in which it was contended that valuation was fixed according to the area, locality, user, amenities and the year of construction and the same was fair and reasonable. It was also contended that the appellant had not produced any evidence to the contrary. It was pointed out that the property was put to commercial use.
4. Before the Small Causes Court, the appellant relied on two documents. One was the judgment of the Small Causes Court dated 4.10.93 in Municipal Valuation Appeal No.22572/92 in which for the year 1992-93, the court had fixed GRV of the same property at Rs.13,680/-. Another document which the appellant relied on was the possession letter dated 15th October 1989 issued by the Secretary of Rangolee Association Ltd. in which the property was situated.
5. The Small Causes Court placed heavy reliance on these documents and allowed the appeal of the property-holder and reduced the GRV to Rs.33,650/-. The Court observed as under:
“Looking to the facts to the appellant the appellant has produced previous judgment in M.V.A.No.22572/92 wherein the GRV is fixed at Rs.13,680/-. The appellant has also produced possession letter which shows value at Rs.400000/- and at 8% the GRV comes to Rs.32000/-. The respondent has not produced at evidence to show that the value of the premises is more than the shown by the appellant. Looking to the facts area, user and locality the GRV of the premises requires to be fixed at Rs.33650/-. Hence I pass following order:”
6. Learned counsel Ms.Jirga Jhaveri appearing for the appellant Municipal Corporation submitted that the court below committed grave error in reducing the GRV adopted by the Corporation. She submitted that the order of the Small Causes Court for the year 1992-93 would not be relevant since in terms of rule 21 of the Taxation Rules, such valuation can have validity at best for a period of three years and no more. In this respect, she relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1994(2) GLR 1499. Counsel further submitted that the possession letter of the Rangolee Association was neither proved nor exhibited. Reliance by the court on such unproved document was wholly untenable. She submitted that in any case, the possession letter can provide no guide to the letting value of the property which has to be determined in terms of section 2(1A) of the BPMC Act. In this respect, counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Rohitbhai Rasiklal Shah, 2005 JX(Guj) 551.
6.1 Counsel further submitted that the Municipal Authorities had given fulfledged hearing to the present respondent before finalising the GRV. It was only after hearing the property-holder that the authorities had passed the order accepting the GRV of Rs.60,788. The constructed area of the property was verified and confirmed after hearing the present respondent.
7. Learned counsel Shri Pandya appearing for the respondent opposed the appeal contending that the Municipal Authorities applied excessive increase in the GRV without proper reasons and applying incorrect parameters.
8. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, two things immediately emerge. Firstly, we find that the court had based its decision on two factors. Firstly, reliance was placed on the previous decision of Small Causes Court dated 4.10.93 in which GRV was fixed at Rs.13,680/-. Second factor heavily relied on by the court was the possession letter dated 15th October 1989 supposed to have been issued by Rangolee Association Ltd. Reliance on both these documents, in our opinion, is not permissible. Firstly, the assessment made in the order dated 4.10.93 pertained to the year 1992-93. In terms of rule 21 of the Taxation Rules, such valuation may have validity for a maximum of three years. This aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad (supra) in following manner:
“73. There can be no doubt that according to Rule 21, the entries of the earlier year can be adopted for the subsequent years. Furthermore every rateable value which is fixed, against which appeal is not filed or every appellate order, which becomes final, has to be given effect to. We, are however, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel that, in the example given above, by him, for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 and onwards, a notice under Rule 15(2) has to be issued, because for the year 1981-82, the appellate court had reduced the rateable value to Rs. 1,500/- after entries for 1982-'83 and 1983-'84 have been adopted. In the very example, which is given, it is contemplated that the entry for 1981-'82 was finalised after the issuance of a valid notice under Rule 15(2). As long as that entry of Rs. 5,000/- for the year 1981-'82 remains, the same could be adopted by the Commissioner in the subsequent years 1982-83 and 1983-'84. If after such adoption for the years 1982-'83 and 1983-'84, the appellate court in respect of the assessment year 1981-'82 allows the appeal and reduces the rateable value, the decision in the said appeal can only be regarded as being given for the assessment year 1981-'82. In taxation, each year is to be regarded as distinct and separate. The Act does not postulate that the appellate decision for one year will, ipso facto, be regarded as a decision for the other years as well. As long as appeals have been filed before the Small Cause Court, or to the High Court, the assessment cannot be regarded as having become final.”
9. With respect to possession letter, admittedly, the same was not exhibited. No witness was examined. The document thus remained unproved and unexhibited. As held by this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Rohitbhai Rasiklal Shah (supra), such unproved document could not have been relied on for ascertaining GRV of the property in question. The Division Bench observed as under:
“7. It is trite law that production of a document is not its proof. When a particular document is sought to be adduced in evidence, then, a person who prepared the document i.e., the scribe or witness to the document is required to be examined. If the person/scribe who prepared the document is available, then, such person would be required to prove the contents of the document. The valuation report is not a document the production of which is deemed to be its proof. It is a private document prepared by a private valuer and under the circumstances, its preparation and contents of the same are required to be proved in accordance with Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A fact, if is asserted by a party and some evidence is led and the court relies upon the said evidence, then, it can be said that the document and the contents of the same are proved. The other party can still disprove the contents of the document by leading further evidence in the matter, saying that though the document was so prepared but it is a bad document and cannot be relied upon. In a case where a document is simply produced on the records, then, neither it is proved nor it is required to be disproved, because, it is a document which has not been proved in accordance with law.”
Additionally, we find that section 2(1A) of the BPMC Act defines annual letting value in relation to period subsequent to 1st April 1970 as the annual rent for which any building or premises, inclusive of furniture or machinery contained or situate therein or thereon might reasonably be expected to let from year to year with reference to its use. The possession letter only indicates that an amount of Rs.4 lacs was paid for the property in question. Letter dated 15th October 1989. Therefore, such possession letter without any further inquiry could not form the basis for ascertaining the letting value of the property, that too many years later.
10. In the present case, therefore, on both counts, the reasoning adopted by the Small Causes Court must fail. When the Municipal Authorities had taken into account the relevant parameters and fixed certain GRV, the Small Causes Court ought to have based its conclusion on legal evidence on record if the appeal of the property-holder was to be allowed.
We have noticed that the Municipal Authorities after hearing the owners had come to the final conclusion with respect to the constructed area of the property. If the respondent herein had any dispute about the same before the Small Causes Court, same had to be established.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Small Causes Court is set aside. R & P be transmitted to the trial court.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (C.L.Soni, J.) (vjn)