COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT of Kania, C. J., Das and Bose JJ., delivered by

(2.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of a bench of the Bombay High court (Sen and Dixit JJ.) delivered on 2/02/1947, in an appeal filed under section 18 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act 11 of 1876 against the judgment of the Revenue Judge at Bombay delivered on 27/10/1942, in a suit filed by the respondents, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, and Madusudan Damodar Bhat, the then Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay, against the Collector of Bombay.

(3.) IT was sought to be argued that even if the government be precluded from enhancing the 'rent' in view of the terms of the government Resolution, it cannot be held to have disentitled itself from its prerogative right to assess 'land revenue'. This contention is sought to be rounded on a distinction between 'rent' and' land revenue'. This contention, however, was not raised in the written statement and was not made the subject-matter of any issue on which the parties went to trial and was never put forward before either of the courts below. Indeed, in the letter of the Mayor of Bombay dated 22/03/1939, to which reference has been made, it was clearly alleged that the word 'rent' was used in official documents with the greatest frequency with reference to the land revenue leviable by the East India Company and later by the government in the City of Bombay and in the Presidency.' In the government's reply dated 24/01/1940, also quoted above this assertion was never repudiated or denied. In the premises, the appellant cannot be permitted at this stage to raise this contention rounded on the supposed distinction, if any, between 'rent' and 'land revenue' and for the purpose of this case we must proceed on the basis that the word 'rent' in the government Resolution of 1865 was synonymous with or included' land revenue.'