THE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF THE CITY OF PUNEversusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

                                                                        13-WP-3289-2004 @1.doc



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3289 OF 2004

                      The Municipal Corpn. Of The City Of Pune               ...Petitioner
NAVNATH
SITARAM
WAGHMARE                            Versus
Digitally signed by   The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.                        ...Respondent
NAVNATH
SITARAM
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.09.24
18:17:11 +0530                                          ****
                      Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Abhishek Roy for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi a/w Mr. Pradyumna S. Thakurdesai for the
                      Respondent.
                                                         ****
                                                    CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                     DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      P.C. :

                      1.       Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-
                      Municipal Corporation is taking exception to Judgment and Order dated
                      02.01.2004 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil
                      Appeal No. 29 of 2001. By the said impugned order, Petitioner's appeal
                      was dismissed thereby confirming the Judgment and Order dated
                      13.10.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court,
                      Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 175 of 1991. In effect, the challenge by
                      the assessee (sole Respondent) to the rateable value (‘RV’ for short)
                      fixed by the Petitioner Municipal Corporation, has been accepted and
                      the RV is reduced from Rs.5,43,550/- to Rs.50,600/- with effect from
                      01.04.1991.

                      2.       The Petitioner-Municipal Corporation issued special notice to the
                      owner of the building under Taxation Rules framed under Bombay
                      Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (‘the said Act’ for short).


                      Navnath Waghmare                                                           1
                                                 13-WP-3289-2004 @1.doc



Inspection was carried out. The assessing officer passed an order on
30.03.1991 fixing the RV at Rs. 5,43,550/- for the subject matter
property in which Respondent - Insurance Company is occupying first
and second floor as a lessee of the owner.

3.      The Respondent filed the said municipal appeal under Section
406 of the said act. The Respondent examined its administrative officer
and one valuer, who has submitted valuation report in respect of first
and second floor in possession of Respondent.

4.      The learned Judge of the Small Causes court who heard and tried
the said appeal, was pleased to allow it thereby setting aside the
impugned bill dated 03.06.1991 and fixing the RV as explained above.
The Petitioner corporation was directed to correct the assessment and
extra taxes collected from Respondent was directed to be refunded with
interest (on failure to refund).

5.      The Petitioner -Municipal Corporation filed appeal under Section
411 of the said Act. and challenged the decision of the Small Causes
Court. By the impugned order, said appeal has been dismissed.

6.      It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner -Municipal
Corporation is before the Court. The petition was admitted on
13.04.2004 and the order of the refund was stayed.

                                   SUBMISSIONS

7.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kulkarni submitted that
the Respondent assessee has failed to lead evidence in response to the
special notice and since the burden squarely lies on the Respondent, no
fault can be found with the assessment order and the Courts below
were not justified in considering the evidence led by the Respondent to


Navnath Waghmare                                                          2
                                                    13-WP-3289-2004 @1.doc



come to contrary conclusion. He further submitted that necessary notice
of transfer of title as provided under Rule 1 of the Taxation Rules is not
given to the Municipal Corporation. He further submitted that
admissions given before the Court about standard rent are not properly
considered. He relied upon the following caselaw in support of his case:

        i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. Vs. Smt. Vimal Govind Joshi , (
        Bombay High Court order in Civil Revision Application No. 25 of 2009
        dated 29.04.2015).

        ii) Municipal Corporation of City of Pune vs. M/s. E.L.F. Filament
        Industries Pvt. ltd. (Bombay High Court order in Writ Petition No. 6151
        of 1999 dated 28.02.2025).

8.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance
Company, Mr. Joshi supported the impugned order contending inter alia
that special notice was not issued to the Respondent -Insurance
company and it was issued to the owner (Lessor); however the bill was
raised on the Respondent -Insurance company. He submitted that
therefore the whole action is vitiated because there is no notice to
Respondent. He further submitted that in absence of notice, the burden
cannot be cast upon Respondent to lead evidence. He further submitted
that in any case, necessary evidence has been led and valuer has been
examined with his report, which has been believed by the Courts below,
concurrently finding in favour of Respondent. He therefore submitted
that no interference is required.

                          REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS

9.      I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

10.     Rule 15(2) of the applicable Taxing Rules, pressed into service by



Navnath Waghmare                                                             3
                                                   13-WP-3289-2004 @1.doc



learned counsel for the Petitioner contemplates 15 days notice special
written notice to owner or occupier of the premises. In the peculiar facts
of the present case, it is apparent from the assessment order itself that
notice was given to the owner of the building (lessor of the Respondent)
and not to the Respondent (lessee). Assessment order further shows
that a representative on behalf of the assessee had appeared, however,
since he had no letter of authority, the assessing officer proceeded ex-
parte. The assessment order also shows that the assessee had demanded
the occupier’s bill by a letter dated 30.03.1991. In such circumstances,
when the Respondent did not have any notice, the assessment order has
been passed when written demand of same date about occupier's bill
was made. Since Rule 15(2) contemplates special notice to owner or
occupier, there is an option available with the Municipal Corporation.
In the present case, the Petitioner has chosen to issue notice to the
owner. Apparently there is nothing on record to indicate that notice was
given to Respondent and occupier. It is also clear that for want of
authority letter, the representative of the assessee was not heard.

11.     So far as argument that ‘notice of change in title is not not given’
is concerned, it is material to note that, prior to assessment order, on
the date of inspection (15.09.1990) itself, the Petitioner was aware that
Respondent Insurance Company was occupying part of the building and
the very reason stated in Form-A is change in occupier/use and increase
in rent income. This is clear from bare perusal of Form-A produced on
record. If that be so, nothing prevented the Petitioner Municipal
Corporation to issue special notice to Respondent/occupier also.

12.     Viewed in the light of what is observed above, the impugned
orders show that the learned judge of the Small Causes Court as well as
learned District Judge have have both considered that though the tax


Navnath Waghmare                                                            4
                                                 13-WP-3289-2004 @1.doc



bill was issued to Respondent-Insurance Company, a special notice was
given to the Owner and not to the Respondent. Therefore, Courts below
have held that the action of assessment was vitiated.

13.     In such peculiar facts, when the Respondent/occupier (in whose
name bill was raised) was not given special notice, burden cannot be
cast upon Respondent/occupier to lead evidence about assessment . For
that reason, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner would not advance the case of the Petitioner.

14.       So far as the merits of the impugned orders is concerned, by
which assessment is fixed at a particular amount, it is fixed on the basis
of evidence of the valuer and the reasons provided by the valuer for
arriving at a particular figure. Both the Courts have accepted the
evidence of the valuer concurrently. In that view of the matter, there is
no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings, as no perversity is
seen. The view taken under impugned order is the most probable view.

15.     In the aforesaid fact and circumstances and for reasons indicated
above, writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is
vacated. No order as to costs.

16.      At this stage, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation
submits that assuming that bill issued to the Respondent-Insurance
Company is to be quashed and set side, still, when the Owner/ lessor
has not challenged the rateable value, it could not have been fixed at a
particular amount. He therefore seeks liberty to re-issue special notice
for the concerned year 1990-1991. It is not possible to permit re-
opening of assessment after a long gap of 36 years. Hence, the request
is rejected.




Navnath Waghmare                                                          5
                                                 13-WP-3289-2004 @1.doc




17.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR
verifiable copy of this order.




                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                          6