{"id":211227,"date":"1967-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967"},"modified":"2016-12-22T09:36:56","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T04:06:56","slug":"motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967","title":{"rendered":"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 441, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 546<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOTICHAND HIRACHAND & ORS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/09\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  441\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 546\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1974 SC1779\t (17)\n\n\nACT:\nBombay Municipal Corporation Act (Bom. 3 of 1888), S. 154(i)\nIncome\tfrom display of advertisement-If can be included  in\nrateable value.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent municipal Corporation increased the  rateable\nvalue  of a building assessed the actual rent  recovered  by\nAppellant--owner, by adding the income\tderived by the owner\nunder  an  agreement  entitling\t a  Company  to\t display  an\nadvertisement  on  the\troof  of  the  building.  The  owner\nsuccessfully  filed a complaint against the  increase  which\nwas upheld by the Small Cause Court  to the High Court,\t and\nits confirmed the enhancement In appeal, this Court:\nHELD: The High Court was right in confirming the enhancement\nof the annual rent.\nIf  a building or a part of it yields an extra\tincome\tover\nand  above the actual rent derived from it, such  income  on\nthe terms of, s. 154 (i) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation\nAct,  can  legitimately be taken into consideration  by\t the\nassessing authority while determining the annual rent on the\nground\tthat  a hypothetical tenant would  take\t such  extra\nincome\tinto  account  while considering what  rent  he\t can\nafford to offer for such building. [553B]\nThe  hypothetical  tenant  includes all\t persons  who  might\npossibly take the property including the persons actually in\noccupation,  even though he happens to be the owner  of\t the\nproperty.   The\t rent  is  that which he  will\tpay  in\t the\n\"higgling  of the market\", taking into account all  existing\ncircumstances  and any relevant future\ttrends.\t  Therefore,\nthe mere fact that the income from the agreement is not rent\nbut licence fee does not justify on any principle of  rating\n,or any construction of s. 154 of the Act, disregard of\t it,\nwhile  estimating  the\trent which  the\t property  would  be\nexpected to fetch. [549B; C; 550G-H]\nThough the owner of the building could not charge rent\tover\nand above that which was permissible under the provisions of\nthe Rent Act, there was nothing in that Act which prohibited\nhim   from  charging  an  amount  from\tan   advertiser\t  in\nconsideration of displaying his advertisement. [551D]\nMahad Municipality v. Bombay S.R.T. Corporation, LXIII\tBom-<\/a>\nbay Law Reporter, 174; Cartwright v. Sculoates Union, [1900]\nA.C.  150; Robinson Bros. v. Houghton and  Chester-le-Street\nAssessment   Committee,\t [1937]\t 2  K.B.  445,\tTaylore\t  v.\nOverseers  of  Pandleton, (1887) 19 Q.B.D.  239,  Wilson  v.\nTavender  (1901) 1 Ch. 578, Corporation of Calcutta v.\tAnil\nPrakash Basu A.I.R. 1958 Cal. 423, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 378 of 1965.
\nAppeal\tfrom the Judgment and decree dated April 9, 1963  of
\nthe Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 616 of 1961.
\nRai Bahadur and B. R. Agarwala, for the appellants.
\nS.  T. Desai, O. P. Malhotra and 0. C. Mathur, for the\tres-
\npondent.\n<\/p>\n
547<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat,\t J. Whether in determining the rateable value  of  a
\nbuilding  the  assessing authority under s.  154(1)  of\t the
\nBombay, Municipal Corporation Act, III of 1888 can take into
\nconsideration income derived by the owner under an agreement
\nentitling an advertisement hoarding to be put up on the roof
\nof such building is the question arising in this appeal.
\nFor consideration of this question a few relevant facts\t may
\nfirst  be  recited.   The  appellants  are  the\t owners\t  of
\n“Fulchand  Nivas”, a building situate at the corner of\twhat
\nwas known at the relevant time as Marine Drive and Sandhurst
\nRoad  opposite\tChowpatty Sea Face,  Bombay.   The  building
\nconsists of ground and five upper floors and a terrace.\t The
\nground floor and five upper floors of the building were\t and
\nare  let  out.\t For  the  last\t few  years  the   Municipal
\nCorporation  has  been assessing the rateable value  of\t the
\nbuilding as equivalent to the actual rents recovered by\t the
\nowners.\t  After the rateable value for the year 1956-57\t was
\nassessed  it was found that the terrace of the building\t was
\nused  for advertising Tata Mercedes-Benz  Automobile  Trucks
\nand  Buses by means of a neon-sign.  This was done under  an
\nagreement  dated  February  5,\t1957  entered  into  by\t the
\nappellants  under which the Tata Locomotive and\t Engineering
\nCo.  Ltd., had a reed to pay to the appellants Rs.  800\t per
\nmonth in consideration of their being allowed to display the
\nsaid  advertisement  and  a  further  sum  of  Rs.  700\t  in
\nconsideration  of the owners agreeing not to allow  any\t one
\nelse to use-any portion of the said building for  displaying
\nany  advertisement save those of the tenants on\t the  ground
\nfloor not above the level of the height of the ground floor.
\nThe agreement provided also that it would be the owners who,
\nduring\tthe  continuance  of the agreement,  would  pay\t all
\nexisting  and  future  rates, taxes  etc.,  which  would  be
\nassessed,  imposed, charged or become payable in respect  of
\nthe  said  building  or the said  advertisement\t except\t the
\nMunicipal  Licence fee in respect of the said  advertisement
\nwhich  would be borne by the Company.  On March 3, 1958\t the
\nrespondent corporation issued a notice under section 167  of
\nthe  Act informing the owners that the assessment  book\t had
\nbeen  amended and that the amount of the rateable  value  of
\nthe  building was increased from Rs. 44,320 to\tRs.  64,685.
\nThe  appellants\t thereupon filed a complaint  under  section
\n163(2)\tof  the\t Act  against  the  said  increase  and\t the
\nassessing  authority  by an order dated\t February  21,\t1959
\nreduced\t the rateable value from Rs. 64,685 to\tRs.  59,600.
\nIn  maintaining the increase from Rs. 44,320 to\t Rs.  59,600
\nthe  assessing\tauthority took into account  the  additional
\nincome\tarising from the said agreement and received by\t the
\nappellants.  The appellants thereupon filed an appeal before
\nthe Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Bombay, objecting to the
\nsaid increase.\tThe Chief Judge disallowed the said increase
\nand  directed that the rateable value should be Rs.  44,320.
\nThe Chief Judge held that under the said agreement
\n548<\/span>
\nthere  was no demise or transfer of an interest in the\tsaid
\nproperty in favour of the Committee, that the said agreement
\namounted  merely to a licence revocable at any\ttime  though
\nsubject\t to  the express terms of the agreement and  was  no
\nmore than a grant of ‘a right in gross to display  neon-sign
\noutside the property and that the, only user of the property
\nwas  that of a small portion of the terrace used as  a\tbase
\nfor  the  said advertisement.  He held that it was  not\t any
\ninherent  or  intrinsic\t quality  ‘of  any  portion  of\t the
\nproperty  which commanded such a high consideration  as\t the
\nsum  of Rs. 1,500 per month.  Aggrieved by this\t order,\t the
\nrespondent Corporation filed an appeal before the High Court
\nat Bombay.  The High Court held that the Chief Judge was  in
\nerror  in  holding that the Municipal  Corporation  was\t not
\nentitled  to take into account income earned by\t the  owners
\nunder  the said agreement, set aside his order and  restored
\nthe  original value assessed by the assessing  authority  at
\nRs. 59,600.  The High Court analysed section 154 of the\t Act
\nand after consideration of the rules as to rating recognised
\nby several decisions both English and that of the High Court
\nitself in Mahad Municipality v. Bombay S.R.T. Corporation<\/a>(1)
\nheld  that the said increase was justified.  The  appellants
\nthen  applied  for  and obtained a  certificate\t under\tArt.
\n133(1)(a) of the Constitution and filed this appeal.
\nCounsel\t for  the owners challenged the correctness  of\t the
\nHigh Court’s judgment and order and contended that in deter-
\nmining\tthe  annual  rent  of  the  building  the  assessing
\nauthority  can,\t take into account the rent  at\t which\tthe.
\nbuilding  is expected to be let, that therefore\t the  income
\nderived\t from an agreement which amounts to a  mere  licence
\nand  not a demise cannot be added to such rent, such  income
\nbeing  totally\tirrelevant to the concept t of\tannual\trent
\nenvisaged  in  rating. -To appreciate the contention  it  is
\nnecessary  first  to  examine s. 154(1)\t of  the  Act.\t The
\nsection provides that in order to fix the rateable value  of
\nany  building  or land assessable to a property\t tax,  there
\nshall  be deducted from the, amount ‘of the annual rent\t for
\nwhich such land or building might reasonably be expected  to
\nlet  from year to year a sum equal to ten percentum  of\t the
\nsaid annual rent and, the said deduction shall be in lieu of
\nall allowances for repairs or on any other account whatever.
\nThe  assessing\tauthority  for\tthe  purpose  of  fixing  to
\nrateable  value has therefore to determine the annual  rent.
\nthat  is,  the\tannual rent for which  such  building  might
\nreasonably  be\texpected to let from year to.  year  and  to
\ndeduct\tthe  10 percent statutory  allowance  therefrom\t and
\narrive at the net rateable value which would be,  equivalent
\nto the net annual rent.\t The rateable value is thus taken to
\nbe the same as the net annual rent of the property.  It is a
\nwell  recognised principle in rating that both gross,  value
\nand net annual, value are estimated by reference to the rent
\nat  which the property might reasonably be expected  to\t let
\nfrom,  year  to\t year.\tVarious\t methods  of  valuation\t are
\napplied
\n(1) LXIII Bombay Law Reporter, 174.\n<\/p>\n
549<\/span><\/p>\n
in  order to arrive at such hypothetical rent, for  instance
\nby  reference to the actual rent paid, for the\tproperty  or
\nfor  others comparable to it or where there are no rents  by
\nreference to the assessments of comparable properties or  to
\nthe  profits  earned  from the property or to  the  cost  of
\nconstruction.\tThe expression “gross value” means the\trent
\nat which a hereditament might reasonably be expected to\t let
\nfrom year to year.  The rent which a tenant could afford  to
\ngive is calculated rebus sic stantibus, that is to say, with
\nreference to the property in its existing physical condition
\nand  to\t the mode in which it is actually used.\t  The  hypo-
\nthetical tenant includes all persons who might possibly take
\nthe  property including the person actually  in\t occupation,
\neven though he happens to be the owner of the property.\t The
\nrent  is  that\twhich he will pay in the  “higgling  of\t the
\nmarket”, taking into account all existing circumstances\t and
\nany  relevant  future trends.  If the property\taffords\t the
\nopportunity  for  the carrying on of a gainful\ttrade,\tthat
\nfact  also  must  be taken into account.   The\tproperty  is
\nassumed\t to be vacant and to let and the material  date\t for
\nthe  valuation is that of the proposal which gives  rise  to
\nthe  proceedings.  The actual rent paid for the property  is
\nnot  conclusive evidence of value, though such\tactual\trent
\nmay serve as an indication as to what a hypothetical  tenant
\ncan  afford to pay.  However, if the actual rent is paid  on
\nterms which differ from those of the hypothetical tenancy it
\nmust  be  adjusted,  if\t possible,  to\tthe  terms  of\t the
\nhypothetical  tenancy before it affords evidence  of  value.
\n(See  Halsbury’s Laws of England, (3rd ed.) vol. 32,  p.  60
\nand onwards).  It is also well recognised that while valuing
\nthe  property in question every intrinsic quality and  every
\nintrinsic circumstance which tends to push the rental  value
\nup  or\tdown  must be taken into  consideration.   In  other
\nwords,\tin estimating the hypothetical rent “all that  could
\nreasonably affect the mind of the intending tenant ought  to
\nbe considered.” (Cartwright v. Sculcoates Union(1).   Scott,
\nL.  J.\tRobinson  Bros. v.  Houghton  and  Chester-le-Street
\nAssessment Committee(‘) observed: –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is  the duty of the valuer to  take\tinto
\n\t      consideration  every  intrinsic  quality\t and
\n\t      every other circumstances which tends to\tpush
\n\t\t\t    the\t rental value up or down, just bec
\nause  it
\n\t      is relevant to the valuation and ought  there-
\n\t      fore  to\tbe  cast  into\tthe  scales  of\t the
\n\t      balance… The ‘objective being the real value
\n\t      of  the  actual hereditament, the\t inquiry  is
\n\t      primarily economic and not legal-, it is\tonly
\n\t      legal  in so far as logical relevance  is\t the
\n\t      measure  of  legal admissibility.”  (See\talso
\n\t      Ryde on Rating, 11th ed., 385, 387).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  measure  for purposes of rating is therefore  the\trent
\nwhich  a hypothetical tenant, looking at the building as  it
\nis,  would  be\tprepared  to  pay.   Though  the  tenant  is
\nhypothetical and the rent
\n(1)  [1900] A.C. 150.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1937] 2 K.B. 445 at 469.\n<\/p>\n
550<\/span><\/p>\n
too  is, hypothetical, the property in respect of  which  he
\nwould  estimate\t that which he would offer as  rent  is\t not
\nhypothetical but concrete.  While estimating the rent  which
\nhe  would  be prepared to pay he would naturally  take\tinto
\nconsideration\tall  the  advantages,  together\t  with\t the
\ndisadvantages attached to the property, that is, the maximum
\nbeneficial  use\t to  which  he would  be  able\tto  put\t the
\nproperty.    In\t  doing\t so  he\t is  bound  to\t take\tinto
\nconsideration the fact of the property being situated at  an
\nunique place as the instant property undoutedly is, viz., at
\nthe  juncture  of two of the most prominent roads  with\t the
\nadditional advantage of Chowpatty Sea Face being opposite to
\nit  where  in the evenings and on week-ends,  it  cannot  be
\nquestioned, large crowds usually gather.  Coupled with\tthis
\nwould  be the’ advantage that a neon-sign advertisement\t can
\nbe  vividly  seen  if fixed on the top of  the\tbuilding  by
\npeople, pedestrians and those in vehicles, from fairly\tlong
\ndistances in all directions, especially as the advertisement
\nhappens\t to  be a rotating one.\t There can therefore  be  no
\ndoubt  that  if a property possesses such an  amenity,\tsuch
\namenity\t is  bound to add to its beneficial  value  and\t the
\ntenant who desires to take it on lease is bound to take into
\nconsideration while making up his mind as to the rent  which
\nhe  can profitably offer as to how much income he  would  be
\nable to derive from exploiting such an amenity.\t The measure
\nof  the\t hypothetical rent which such a tenant\twould  offer
\nwould  thus be the extent of the beneficial use to which  he
\nwould  be able to put the property on its being demised’  to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
That  being so it seems to us that the question\t whether  an
\nagreement under which such a tenant would be able to exploit
\nthe advantageous situation in which the property is  situate
\namounts to a lease or licence is totally irrelevant for\t the
\npurpose of assessing the rateable value.  Equally irrelevant
\nis  the\t question whether the income arising  from  such  an
\nagreement  is rent or licence fee.  To consider such  income
\nas irrelevant in the process of rating on the ground that it
\ndoes not amount to rent but to licence fee is to misconstrue
\nthe  true measure of the rent expected from the\t prospective
\ntenant.\t  The tenant would not only take into  consideration
\nthe  actual  rent derived from the property  but  also\tsuch
\nother  income  which he would be able to  extract  from\t the
\nsituation  of the property by exploiting as best as  he\t can
\nthe beneficial use to which the property is capable of being
\nput.   Therefore,  the mere fact that the  income  from\t the
\nagreement  is not rent but licence fee and therefore  cannot
\nbe added to the actual rent fetched by the property does not
\njustify\t on any principle ‘of rating or any construction  of
\nsection 154 of the Act, disregard of it while estimating the
\nrent which’ the property would be expected to fetch.
\nIt  is\ttrue that the rating was so far made  including\t the
\nyear  in  question on the basis of the actual  rent  derived
\nfrom
\n551<\/span>
\nthe  property.\tThat appears to have been done\tbecause\t ‘of
\nthe  restrictions  under the Bombay Rent Act  by  reason  of
\nwhich the property cannot be leased at rent higher than\t the
\nstandard  rent\tallowed under the provisions  of  that\tAct.
\nSince no hypothetical tenant would pay rent higher than such
\nstandard  rent the actual rent would ordinarily be the\trent
\nexpected’ from a hypothetical tenant.  The question would be
\nwhether the Corporation would be justified in enhancing\t the
\nrateable value by adding the said sum of Rs. 1500 per  month
\narising\t from  the said amount?\t It is\ttrue,  as  ‘observed
\nearlier,  that -the hypothetical rent cannot be in  view  of
\nthe rent restrictions higher than the actual rent.  But\t the
\nincome arising under the said agreement is not rent realised
\nfrom letting out any part of the property to the Company but
\nis in consideration of the exclusive privilege granted to it
\nof  displaying its neon-sign advertisement.  It is  manifest
\nthat the user thereunder of part of the terrace adds to\t the
\nbeneficial  value of the building.  For such user the  owner
\ncan  legitimately expect something extra over and above\t the
\nstandard  rent\tof the building.  Though the  owner  of\t the
\nbuilding  cannot  charge rent over and above that  which  is
\npermissible  under the provisions of the Rent Act, there  is
\nnothing\t in  that Act which prohibits him from\tcharging  an
\namount from an advertiser in consideration of the  privilege
\nof  displaying\this advertisement.  A  hypothetical  tenant,
\ntherefore,  would take into consideration such extra  income
\narising from the special advantage attached to the  building
\nand would be prepared to pay over and above the actual\trent
\nsomething in respect of such an additional advantage.
\nCounsel\t for  the appellants relied upon  certain  decisions
\nwhich  we may now examine.  Taylor v. Overseers\t of  Pendle-
\nton(1)\tis  a  case  where  the\t question  was\twhether\t the
\nadvertising  agent was a tenant or a licensee.\tIf he was  a
\nlicensee  it would be the owner who would be the-  occupier;
\nif  a tenant it would be the advertising agent who would  be
\nthe  occupier.\t Since\tunder  the English  law\t it  is\t the
\noccupier  and not the owner who is liable for rates  it\t was
\nheld that the agent being the tenant was the occupier and it
\nwas  he and not the owner who was liable to pay\t rates.\t  In
\nWilson v. Tavener(2) the defendant agreed by an agreement to
\nlet  the plaintiff erect a hoarding upon the forecourt of  a
\ncottage\t and to allow him the use of a gable end for a\tbill
\nposting\t station at yearly rent.  It was held the  agreement
\ndid  not  amount  to tenancy from year to  year\t but  was  a
\nlicence and a quarter’s notice terminating at the end of the
\nyear  of  the  currency of the agreement  was  a  reasonable
\nnotice.\t These decisions cannot be appropriately brought  to
\naid  by\t the appellants as under the English law it  is\t the
\noccupier who is liable for the tax and it is for that reason
\nthat  the  court had to determine in each case\twhether\t the
\nagreement in question create
\n(1) [1887] 19 Q.B.D. 289.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1901]  1 Ch. 578.\n<\/p>\n
552<\/span><\/p>\n
a  demise  or a licence.  But whether the advertiser  was  a
\nlessee\t or  a\tmere  licensee,\t the  income  arising\tfrom
\nadvertisement  hoardings has always been rated\tirrespective
\nof  the\t question  as  to who was liable  to  pay  the\ttax.
\nReliance  was  placed both before the High  Court  and\talso
\nbefore us on the decision in Corporation of Calcutta v. Anil
\nPrakash\t Basu(1).   The building there was let\tout  to\t the
\ntenant\tat Rs. 64 \/ 14 \/ -. per month.\tOn the roof  of\t it,
\nhowever,  the  Calcutta.   Street  Advertising\tCompany\t had
\ndisplayed a neon sign board of Capstain cigarette for  which
\nthe  owner  was paid Rs. 125 per month.\t  The  question\t was
\nwhether the Calcutta Corporation was right in treating\tthis
\nincome\tas  rent  within the meaning of\t s.  127(a)  of\t the
\nCalcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and take it into account  while
\ndetermining  the  annual  letting  value  of  the  building.
\nSection 127(a) is as follows.:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “For   the  purpose  of  assessing  land\t and
\n\t      building\tto the consolidated rate the  annual
\n\t      value  of\t land and the annual  value  of\t any
\n\t      building\terected\t for  letting  purposes\t  or
\n\t      ordinarily let shall be deemed to be the gross
\n\t      annual  rent  at which the  land\tor  building
\n\t      might at the time of assessment reasonably  be
\n\t      expected to let from year to year less in\t the
\n\t      case of a building an allowance of 10% for the
\n\t      cost  of\trepairs and for all  other  expenses
\n\t      necessary to maintain the building in a state.
\n\t      to command such gross rent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court held that the roof of the building on  which
\nthe,  sign board was put up could not be said to  have\tbeen
\ndemised,   that\t the  amount  paid  to\tthe  owner  by\t the
\nadvertising  agency was therefore not rent and that the\t use
\nof  the\t roof for putting up the sign board  amounted  to  a
\nlicence\t and therefore could not be treated as rent for\t the
\npurpose of assessing the annual value of the building.\t The
\nHigh  Court relied on certain English decisions and also  on
\nits   own  earlier’  decisions\tfor  deciding  whether\t the
\nagreement  between  the\t owner and  the\t advertising  agency
\namounted  to  a\t lease or licence.   Having  held  that\t the
\nagreement  amounted  to\t a licence and not  lease  and,\t the
\nincome\twas  licence  fee  and\tnot  rent  it  rejected\t the
\ncontention of the Municipal Corporation that it was entitled
\nto  treat  the amount of Rs. 125 a month as  rent  over\t and
\nabove  the actual rent of the building., It may be  observed
\nthat  it  was never argued before the High  Court  that\t the
\nagreement, whether the said amount was rent or licence\tfee,
\nadded  to the beneficial value of the building, that  though
\nthe  roof ‘on the terms of that agreement could not be\tsaid
\nto  have  been demised, what had to be considered  under  s.
\n127(a)\tfor assessing the- annual rent of the  building\t was
\nthe,,  rent which a hypothetical tenant was expected to\t pay
\nand  not  the  actual rent, and\t whether  such\thypothetical
\ntenant would or
\n(1) A.I.R. 1958 Cal. 423.\n<\/p>\n
553<\/span><\/p>\n
would  not take into consideration the extra income  derived
\nfrom  the use of the roof for the advertising hoarding\tover
\nand  above the actual rent while deciding what rent  he\t can
\nprofitably  offer  for the building.  Such  a  question\t not
\nhaving\tbeen  raised or decided this  decision\talso  cannot
\nassist the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
In our view if the building or a part of it yields am  extra
\nincome\tover and above the actual rent derived from it\tsuch
\nincome on the terms of s. 154(1) of the Act can legitimately
\nbe taken into consideration by the assessing authority while
\ndetermining   the   annual  rent  on  the  ground   that   a
\nhypothetical  tenant  would  take  such\t extra\tincome\tinto
\naccount\t while considering what rent he can afford to  offer
\nfor such building.  That being the correct position under s.
\n154(1)\tof the Act the High Court, was right  in  confirming
\nthe  enhancement of the annual rent from Rs. 44,320  to\t Rs.
\n59,600.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nY. P.\n<\/p>\n
     n\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n554<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 441, 1968 SCR (1) 546 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: MOTICHAND HIRACHAND & ORS Vs. RESPONDENT: BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1967 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M. CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMotichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T04:06:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T04:06:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3343,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\",\"name\":\"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T04:06:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T04:06:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967","datePublished":"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T04:06:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967"},"wordCount":3343,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967","name":"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T04:06:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/motichand-hirachand-ors-vs-bombay-municipal-corporation-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Motichand Hirachand & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}