Judgment:
1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th March 2006 passed by the 13th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Pune, dismissing CivilAppeal No. 584 of 2005 filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Pune in Municipal Appeal No. 38 of 2000.
2. Respondent is the owner of the property bearing House No.9651, Survey No. 723/1/5, Rajendra Nagar, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. He had initially constructed a ground floor structure admeasuring 1162 sq. ft. on his land in the year 1968 or thereabout. After issuing a notice to the respondent, the petitioner Municipal Corporation fixed the rateable value at Rs. 1620/-. The respondent carried out extension of the ground floor by constructing some additional premises on the ground floor and also constructed first floor in his property in the year 1999 or thereabout. The total new construction was to the extent of 1412 sq. ft. On 14th October 1999, the petitioner issued a special notice proposing to increase the rateable value to Rs.11,650/- on account of the new construction. Within the statutory period of 15 days, the respondent raised an objection to the proposed increase by his letter dated 25th October 1999 sent by registered post. The petitioner thereafter without hearing and even without any notice of hearing fixed the annual rateable value at Rs.11,650/- and issued a bill for property tax on the basis of the revised rateable value. Aggrieved by the increase in the rateable value and the bill, the respondent filed an appeal bearing Municipal Appeal No. 38 of 2000 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, challenging the rateable value and the bill. The Small Causes Court, Pune, after considering the evidence adduced before it and in particular the postal acknowledgment, held that the respondent had proved that he had sent an objection letter dated 25th October 1999 to the special notice proposing increase in the rateable value. The Small Causes Court further held that as per the procedure laid down in Chapter VIII of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Act, 1949, the petitioner was bound to give hearing to the respondent as to the objection raised by him to the proposed increase. It accordingly held that the rateable value was fixed by the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and without following the procedure required by law and, therefore, the increase in the rateable value was void. After considering the evidence adduced before it, the Small Causes Court fixed the annual rateable value at Rs.5,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Small Causes Court, the revision applicant filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 584 of 2005 in the District Court, Pune. The District Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 24th March 2006. That decision is impugned in this revision application.
4. The scope of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") is limited. Section 115 of the Code provides that a High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies thereto if such subordinate Court appears (a) to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the present case, no ground for interference under section 115 of the Code is made out. The Judge, Small Causes Court admittedly had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal against the rateable value in view of section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The Small Causes Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. After considering the evidence adduced before it and the postal acknowledgment received from the post office bearing the rubber stamp of the petitioner, the Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had objected to the rateable value within 15 days of the special notice. It also recorded a finding of fact that no hearing was given by the revision applicant to the respondent before increasing and fixing the rateable value. In the circumstances, the fixation of rateable value was clearly illegal and the Small Causes Court rightly set it aside.
5. Learned counsel for the revision applicant submitted that the Small Causes Court, after holding that the procedure under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act for fixation of the rateable value was not followed as the respondent was not given an opportunity of hearing before revising the rateable value, ought to have remanded the matter back to the assessment officer for deciding the rateable value afresh. He submitted that the Small Causes Court ought not to have reduced the rateable value from Rs.11,650/- to Rs.5,000/-, as there was no evidence before it about the rent which the property would fetch in a free market. Counsel therefore urged that the matter may be remitted back to the assessment officer for refixing the rateable value after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent decision of the Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for two reasons. Firstly, the rateable value has been reduced from Rs.11,650/- to Rs.5,000/-. The claim in the revision application is too small to burden the system with a fresh round of litigation. Secondly, in my view, remanding the matter is not in the interest of revision applicant itself. If the rateable value fixed by the two Courts below at Rs.5,000/- is set aside, until the revised annual rateable value is fixed the respondent would be required to pay the property tax only on the basis of the existing (original) rateable value of Rs.1,620/- till the new rateable value is determined. In that event, the revision applicant would be required to refund to the respondent the extra property tax collected by it on the basis of the rateable value of Rs.5,000/- and would have to charge the property tax only on the rateable value of Rs.1,620/- for all these years, i.e. from 1999 to 2011. In the circumstances, the revision applicant itself would be the loser. Hence, I am not inclined to grant the request for remand.
6. No interference is called for in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision application is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.500/-.