- (1.) The appellant is liable to property tax leviable under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (the 'Act'). It constructed a building on two plots bearing Nos. 165 and 166. The construction started in February, 1962 and was completed by December 1964. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, for short the 'Corporation', asked the assessee to show cause as to why the rateable value should not be raised to Rs. 17,36,420/- with effect from 16-6-1963. The assessee raised objection to the enhancement. After considering the objection, the Corporation fixed the rateable value at Rs. 12,16,285 by adopting a method styled as comparative. The assessment as finalised by the Corporation came to be challenged by the assessee-appellant before the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court under section 217 of the Act. One of the contentions advanced by the assessee was that instead of the comparative method adopted by the Corporation, the suitable basis for assessment was contractor's method. Both the parties led evidence and the Chief Judge came to the conclusion that the comparative method was not unsuitable. It was secondly held that even if the contractor's method was to be adopted, the result would not have been different. After going through the merits of the controversy the Chief Judge reduced the rateable value to Rs. 9,97,555/-. Both the corporation and the assessee appealed before the High Court of Bombay and by the impugned judgment the High Court has accepted the appeal of the corporation by enhancing the rateable value to Rs. 11,81,450/-. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed. This appeal by special leave is by the assessee.
(2.) A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the comparative method was held to be unsuitable inasmuch as there being no other building within the area comparable in all respects to the building in question, that method could not apply, as, what would have been the rent of the building if let out to a tenant could not be known. This view taken by the High Court is not assailed before us by any of the parties. We would, therefore, see whether while adopting the contractor's method, any wrong has been committed in fixation of the rateable value at Rs. 11,81,450/-.
(3.) According to the appellant, the High Court erred in including the following items in the cost of construction : (a) Cost of air-conditioning machinery amounting to Rs. 5,91,767.50. (b) Cost of false ceiling amounting to Rs. 7,80,289/-. (c) Cost of wooden partitions dividing the floor spaces amounting to Rs. 3,45,032.10. (d) Cost of mural figure on the outside wall amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. (e) Amount of ground rent for 4 years and 4 months @ Rs. 59,000/- per year-the total of which comes to Rs. 1,94,065.60. (f) A sum of Rs. 1,61,721.28 being the interest on Rs. 2,98,562.50 which the appellant had deposited with the corporation while undertaking the construction of the building. (g) A sum of Rs. 14,38,589.83 representing interest @ 6 1/2% on Rs. 82,99,557.07 which was the total cost of construction.;