JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith. 2.The petitioner challenges the demand of tax consequent to increase in the rateable value, amongst other grounds, contending that the complaint filed by the petitioner against the increase of the rateable value was not at all considered and without considering the same, the respondents are insisting for payment of tax based on the increased rateable value, for the years 2003-04. 3.Perusal of the records discloses that consequent to the notice issued to the petitioner regarding increase in the rateable value, the petitioner had filed the complaint on 16th April, 2003. However, it appears that the same was filed beyond the period of 15 days within which the complaint was required to be filed in terms of section 162 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. At the same time, it is a matter of record that by letter dated 7th August, 2003 in reply to the said complaint dated 16th April, 2003, the respondents had informed the petitioner that the petitioner can renew that complaint during the period from 20th November to 14th December, 2003 in relation to the concerned year as it is the practice of the Corporation to entertain the complaint against the increase in the rateable value during the said period. It is also not in dispute that consequently the petitioner had filed the complaint on 14th December, 2003 and the same is pending with the respondents. 4.In the course of hearing, upon instructions of the officer who is present in the Court, the learned Advocate for the Corporation submitted that the respondents would hear the petitioner in relation to the said complaint and thereafter would pass an appropriate order in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law and till then they would not insist for payment of tax based on the increase in the rateable value which is sought to be challenged in this petition. 5.While accepting the said statement, the impugned notice needs to be granted while observing that the respondents shall dispose of the complaint, after hearing the petitioner as stated above and further, in case that the decision of the Authority happens to be adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order of the Corporation to the petitioner. 6.In the result, the petition succeeds. The impugned notice of demand is quashed and set aside. The respondents to hear the petitioner in relation to the complaint dated 14th December, 2003 against the increase in the rateable value and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner, and in case the said decision happens to be adverse to the petitioners interest, the same shall not be implemented for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of such decision to the petitioner. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. -----