G S DUGAL AND CO PVT LIMITED Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these are the appeals under sec. 411 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 brought to this court by three different appellants challenging the orders in the Municipal Valuation Appeals decided by the Judge of the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad befor whom the proceedings had arisen under sec. 406 of the Act. A schedule is appended to this judgment showing which appeal has arisen from which Municipal Valuation appeal in the Small Causes Court what property is involved and for which year the respective first Appeal is. All these appeals can be conveniently dealt with together and disposed of by this common judgment of course with the concurrence of the learned advocates appearing for the Corporation as well as Mr. P. V. Nanavati who is the advocate for the appellants in all these seven appeals.

(2.) The question that arises in these seven appeals is whether a parking place which is required to be compulsorily kept by the owner of a commercial building can be made liable to general tax which is leviable under sec. 132 of the Act. It is common ground in all these appeals and the learned advocates appearing for the Corporation also did not dispute this proposition that the parking place are compulsorily required to be provided for in such commercial buildings meant for office rooms and/or professional consulting rooms as per the municipal bylaws. As per the said by laws in case of such commercial buildings known as office rooms and professional consulting rooms a provision for parking place is a matter of obligation and the permission to construct is given subject to those conditions. It is equally an admitted fact that if such a parking place is used for the purpose other than that of parking it would be the breach of the municipal by law which breach would visit the occupier or the owner with penal consequences. The building concerning the First Appeal no. 205180 is known as the Relief Shopping Centre situated on the Salapose Road Ahmedabad. The Building which is the subject matter of the First Appeal nos. 1122/79 1125 and 653 is a shopping centre known as the Vrandavan Shopping Centre. The building that concerns itself with the First Appeals nos. 1123/79 1124 and 604180 Is known as Anand Shopping Centre. The Relief Shopping Centre was constructed by the appellant company of the First Appeal no. 205 of 1980. After constructing those various offices and consulting rooms the appellant company sold away those premises to different persons but retained its ownership possession and control of and over the parking space. In two other matters also the owners who constructed those shopping centres did likewise. It is however the common ground which is not controverted that these owners of parking places allow their assignees or tenants the free use of this parking place. Even the visitors to those offices avail themselves of this facility without paying any charges. For the years 1977-78 1978 and 1979-80 the Municipal Corpsration treated these parking places as buildings worked out their annual letting value and levied the general tax The objections were lodged but they were turned down by the Appellate Officer and the matter had gone to the Small Causes Court and ultimately the matters are before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Nanavati the learned advocate appearing for all the appellants in these seven appeals urged that as per the municipal compulsion these parking places were required to be used as such and under the peril of prosecution the appellants could not put these parking places to any other use. Mr. Nanavatis submission therefore was that these properties which were required to be set apart compulsarily for the use of buildings in question could not be separately conceivably let and the question of arriving at the real or hypothetical annual letting value would not at all arise. He therefore as a consequence pleaded that as these properties were not susceptible of being attached any annual letting value as defined in sec. 2(1A) of the Act the very bottom of assessment under sec. 132 of the Act was knocked out and the properties therefore were not liable to pay the general taxes under sec. 132 of the Act. On the other hand Mr. G. N. Desai and Mr. S. N. Shelat appearing for the Corporation in some of these matters urged that these parking places were independent units of buildings and by resort to sec 3(1A) of the Act annual letting value could be fixed with respect to them and as they were buildings they were liable to pay the general tax which were levied in their respect. It is this controversy resting on the interpretation of the various provisions of the Act that is to be resolved in these appeals.