B. N. KIRPAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 15. 12. 1982 of the Chief Judge Small Causes Court Ahmedabad whereby the appeal riled by the respondent against the rateable value fixed for the Assessment Year 1981-82 was allowed and the rateable value was reduced from Rs. 1 18 16 to Rs. 20 400 ( 2 ) AT the outset it may he pointed out that the aforesaid judgment on the Chief Judge Small Causes Court Ahmedabad disposed of three appeals which had been filed by the respondent being M. V. Appeal No. 1487 of 1980 in respect of Assessment Year 1979-80 M. V. Appeal No. 657 of 1981 in respect of Assessment Year 1980-81 and M. V. Appeal No. 2690 of 1981 in respect of the Assessment Year 1981 Against the said common judgment the First Appeals were filed being first Appeal Nos. 1119 of 1983 1120 of 1983 and three present appeal which is First Appeal No. 1121 of 1983. ( 3 ) THE earlier appeals namely First Appeals No. 1119 of 1983 and 1120 of 1983 were disposed of by a detailed judgment dated 8. 9. 1994 along with number of other First Appeals. Therefore we are here concerned only with the appeal in respect of the Assessment Year 1981-82. ( 4 ) THE respondent is a tenant of the premises situated in Ahmedabad in respect of which the rateable value for the Assessment Year 1981-82 was determined at Rs. 1 18 16 This rateable value was fixed on the basis that the respondent was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 7 295. 65 The rateable value was worked out on the basis of the yearly rent being so paid. No appeal was filed by the owner of the premises and the present appeal has been filed against the rateable value by the respondent who is tenant of the premises. ( 5 ) IN the judgment of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. being First Appeal No. 429 of 1983 which also decided First Appeals No. 1119 and 1120 of 1983 were filed against the respondent herein it has been held that no appeal was maintainable against the rateable value by the tenant. ( 6 ) DESPITE the fact that this Court now held that the appeal like the present one by the tenant could not have been filed before the Small Causes Court in a matter in which Shri N. J. Modi had argued at length considerable time of the Court has again been taken at the instance of the respondent seeking to reagitate the same question. In an attempt to justify the same it has been contended rather forcefully as also over-bearingly that in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court had not considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. Special Area Development Authority AIR 1982 SC 697 . According to Shri Modi as per the ratio of the said judgment this Court ought to have held that appeal by a tenant was maintainable. ( 7 ) NO reference to the decision in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. was made because the same is wholly irrelevant for the point in issue. In Western Coalfields Ltd. s case a contention was sought to be raised that the lands in question had belonged to the Madhya Pradesh State Govt. and therefore the appellant Company could not be called upon to pay the tax. Repealing this contention the Supreme Court note (i that Explanation to Section 147 of the M. P. Municipalities Act provides that though the property tax had to be paid by the owner of the land or building as the case may be for the purposes of that Section a tenant of land or building or both who holds the same under a lease for an agreed period with a covenant for its renewal thereafter shall be deemed to be the owner thereof. Section 141 of the said Act had also provided that the property tax would be primarily paid by the owner but it could also be recovered from the occupier of the land or building. ( 8 ) IT is quite evident that the aforesaid decision in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. has no application here. Firstly Western Coalfields Ltd. s case was not concerned with the question as to whether appellant could file appeal challenging the rateable value or not. ( 8 ) IT is quite evident that the aforesaid decision in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. has no application here. Firstly Western Coalfields Ltd. s case was not concerned with the question as to whether appellant could file appeal challenging the rateable value or not. Secondly Section 147 of the M. P. Municipalities Act clearly contained a deeming provision according to which the tenant under certain circumstances is deemed to be the owner of the premises. No such provision exists in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 Thirdly in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. this Court has construed the relevant provisions of the B. P. M. C. Act and on its interpretation has come to the conclusion that an appeal by a tenant challenging the rateable value is not maintainable. No such question arose in Western Coalfields Ltd. s case. The said decision as already observed can be of no assistance to the counsel for the respondent. ( 9 ) IT was sought to be contended that Western Coalfields Ltd. s case clearly shows that the respondent was a person aggrieved and therefore he could file an appeal. We have already interpreted the provisions of the B. P. M. C. Act and have come to the conclusion that the tenant has no right to challenge the rateable value of the property and that challenge can only be by the owner of the property. For the reasons contained in the judgment of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. s case we concluded that the appeal filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court was not maintainable. ( 10 ) IT was urged by Shri Modi that he would like to raise all the contentions on merits of the case which had been raised in the grounds of appeal memo which had been filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court. He submitted that he has instructions from his client to agitate all those contentions as the respondent contemplates filing a further appeal to the Supreme Court of India. Despite it being pointed out that the matters stand concluded by the earlier judgment in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. He submitted that he has instructions from his client to agitate all those contentions as the respondent contemplates filing a further appeal to the Supreme Court of India. Despite it being pointed out that the matters stand concluded by the earlier judgment in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and despite the fact that in respect of two out three years in respect of which the impugned judgment of the Chief Judge was assailed had been the subject matter of the said judgment Shri Modi persisted in arguing the contentions which had been or were to be raised before the Chief Judge Small Causes Court. He even sought to assail the correctness of our judgment in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. s case. We see no reason whatsoever for going into this exercise and deciding various points which Shri Modi wishes to agitate once again for the simple reason that most if not all the contentions have been dealt with in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. s case and secondly the appeal filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court was itself not maintainable. ( 11 ) IT was also vehemently contended by Shri Modi that the decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. s case was conflicting with the decision of an earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bai Nani vs. Baroda Municipal Corporation 1984 GLH 719 Bai Nanis case was primarily concerned with the provisions of Section 406 (2) (c) of the B. P. M. C. Act and it had been held in that case Sub-clause (e) in terms provides the right of appeal both against the tax and rateable value after the bill for the property tax is presented to the intended appellant. Not only it provides a right to appeal but also provides the condition of depositing the amount of tax before such appeal is filed. The question of interpretation of Section 406 of the B. P. M. C. Act does not clearly arise for consideration in the present case. It is therefore not necessary to decide whether there is any conflict between judgment in the case of Bai Nani and our judgment in the case of Oriental Fire and Central Insurance Co. Ltd. In any case we do not find any such conflict between the two judgments. It is therefore not necessary to decide whether there is any conflict between judgment in the case of Bai Nani and our judgment in the case of Oriental Fire and Central Insurance Co. Ltd. In any case we do not find any such conflict between the two judgments. ( 12 ) SECTION 406 of the B. P. M. C. Act reads as under:"406. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained appeal against any rateable value of tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. (2) No such appeal shall be entertained unless- (a) It is brought within fifteen days after the accrual of the cause of complaint; (b) in the case of an appeal against a rateable value a complaint has previously been made to the Commissioner as provided under this Act and such complaint has been disposed of; (c) in the case of an appeal against any tax in respect of which provision exists under this Act for a complaint to be made to the Commissioner against the demand such complaint has previously been made and disposed of; (d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book for properly taxes during the official year a complaint has been made by the person aggrieved within fifteen days after he first received notice of such amendment and his complaint has been disposed of; (e) in the case of an appeal against a tax or in the case of appeal made against a rateable value after a bill for any property tax assessed upon such value has been presented to the appellant the amount claimed from the appellant has been deposited by him with the Commissioner: "provided that wherein any particular case the Judge is of opinion that the deposit of the amount by the appellant will cause undue hardship to him the Judge may in his discretion dispense with such deposit or part thereof either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he may deem fit. " Sub-section (1) of Section 406 clearly provides for the right of an appeal against any rateable value or tax which is charged or fixed. " Sub-section (1) of Section 406 clearly provides for the right of an appeal against any rateable value or tax which is charged or fixed. Sub-section (2) opens with the words No such appeal shall be entertained unless which means that sub-clauses (a) to (e) contain the conditions which must be satisfied before any appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 406 can be entertained. Sub-clause (b) provides for an appeal against the rateable value only if a complaints has been previously made and decided. While sub-clause (6) provides for an appeal against any tax. The condition which is required to be satisfied in sub-clause (e) is that in the case of an appeal against the tax or in the case of an appeal made against rateable value after a bill of any property tax has been presented the amount claimed from the appellant has to be deposited by him with the Commissioner. The emphasis in sub-clause (e) is on the payment of tax which has been demanded before the appeal can be entertained. This sub-clause (e) thus contemplates an appeal being held against a rateable value after a bill for property tax has been presented to the appellant. It is to this aspect to which reference was made in Bai Nanis case and we see no conflict in this decision and the decision in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 13 ) IT was all sought to be contended by Shri Modi that rateable value has been properly fixed by the Chief Judge Small Causes Court Ahmedabad. It is not in dispute that the rateable value which has been fixed by the Municipal Authorities was on the basis of the actual rent which was having paid. This was the first letting and it has been held in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. s case that subject to the order being passed by the competent Court for fixation of standard rent the first contractual rent is also deemed to be the standard rent. Be that as it may it is not necessary for us to go into this question because the appeal filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court was itself not maintainable. Be that as it may it is not necessary for us to go into this question because the appeal filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court was itself not maintainable. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons this appeal is allowed and the order of the Chief Judge Small Causes Court Ahmedabad is set aside and the rateable value determined by the Municipal Authorities is restored. In view of the fact that considerable time of the Court has been taken at the instance of a Government Corporation in trying to re-argue the matter even though it had been concluded by an earlier judgment of this Court delivered not long ago the respondent shall be liable to pay costs and counsels fee determined at Rs. 1 500 appeal Allowed. .