VAIDYA,J. - (1.) THE above 173 appeals arc filed under Section 218D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act against an order dated June 5, 1964, passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay, dismissing ] 99 municipal appeals filed before him under Section 217 of the said Act. The appellants in all these appeals have been called upon by the Bombay Municipal Corporation to pay halalkhor tax at 3| per cent, of the rateable value of their respective properties. The appellants filed the respective appeals before the Chief Judge under Section 217 of the Act challenging the validity of the demands made on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In most of the appeals the bills which were sent by the Municipal Corporation related to the period from April 1, 1963 to September 30, 1963. It is not necessary to refer to the period of the bills in the other appeals which are mentioned in detail in the judgment of the learned Chief Judge. The appellants in the aforesaid appeals raised in their appeals before me two important common points about the proper construction of the relevant provisions in the Act relating to the levy and collection of halalkhor tax, viz., (1) that the halalkhor tax could not be levied on the respective properties of the appellants under Section 142(1)(a) because the appellants had constructed in their respective properties water closets and septic tanks and these were different from 'privies, urinals and cesspools' in respect - of which alone halalkhor tax could be levied, (2) that the said tax could not be levied in law by the Corporation until the Corporation had undertaken measures for rendering halalkhor service with effect from April 1, 1963 or with effect from the date from which the tax was demanded and, in any esrent, the Corporation could not levy the tax as no halalkhor services were rendered to the properties of the appellants.
(2.) IN support of the first contention it was further urged that the water -closets and septic tanks erected on their properties did not require the collection, removal or disposal of any excrementitious or polluted matter from, them as the contents were disintegrated by bacterial action. In a few appeals a further ground of objection to the levy and collection of the tax that was urged was that public notices issued by the Commissioner were not legal and proper. It is not necessary for the disposal of these appeals to refer to or deal with some other grounds which were urged before the Chief Judge in some of the appeals as they are not relied upon on behalf of the appellants before me and they were overruled by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes. The appeals were resisted before the Chief Judge on behalf of the Municipal Corporation firstly on the ground that public notices as required under Section 142(1)(a) were issued by the Municipal Commissioner on January '22, 1951, February 24, 1958, and February 19, 1960 stating that the Municipal Corporation will undertake the collection, removal and disposal of excrementitious and polluted matter from privies, urinals and cesspools in the areas mentioned in the said notices which will be presently referred to and in which the appellants' properties were situated and the said notices were duly published and were legal; secondly on the ground that once these public notices were issued, it, was competent for the Corporation to impose halalkhor taxes on these properties under Section 142(1)(a) of the Act; and thirdly on the ground that even though the Municipal Corporation had not levied the halalkhor tax in the case of properties having septic tanks not connected to Municipal drains as no halalkhor service was rendered to them, a public notice was further issued on March 16, 1963 proposing to render halalkhor service to the said properties and to levy halalkhor tax at 8 per cent, of the rateable value of the property with effect from April 1, 1963. Besides, a preliminary point was raised before the Chief Judge, at the hearing of the appeals, on behalf of the Corporation contending that the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court had no power to consider the validity of the halalkhor tax imposed by the Corporation in appeals under Section 217 of the Act.
(3.) THE parties agreed that the appeals should be heard together by the Chief Judge and evidence on behalf of some of the appellants was led of witnesses mainly with regard to the absence of halalkhor services rendered by the Municipal Corporation and the nature of the water -closets and septic tanks. Thus Wasudeo Govind Vaze, one of the joint owners of a property situated in the areas covered by the public notices; Sam Phiroze Rao, a partner of Messrs Poonakar Billimoria and Co., Architects (witness for Godrej Boyce and Mfg. Co. Ltd., one of the appellants); Tarachand Manilal Shah, Construction Engineer in the Premier Automobiles Ltd. (witness on behalf of the appellants Premier Automobiles Ltd.); Wasudeo Govind Pendharkar, owner of a property situated in Jogeshwari; Kalidas Murarji Bhakta, Manager of one of the appellants; Minoo Phirozeshah Daruwalla, a Civil Engineer of the appellants Burman Shell Refinery ; Vasco Fernandez, Divisional Head of Design Engineering in Esso Standard Refinery; Ganesh Anandrao Rackvi, an Assistant Accountant of the appellant company Mukund Iron and Steel Ltd.; and Mandayam Krishnakumar Parthasarathi Iyengar, Civil Engineer in the service of Tata Hydro Electric Works, were examined to give evidence in support of the appellants' contentions.;