Judgment : Oral Judgment: This Petition challenges the decision of the Small Causes Court in Municipal Appeal No.41 of 1991. By the impugned order of 21st July, 1993, the Small Causes Court had fixed the annual rateable value of the shop occupied by the respondent at Rs.1,720/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1991, reducing it from Rs.5,500/-. 2. The property situate at Survey No.38/2, C.T.S. No.1189/17, Maharshi Karve Nagar, Pune was developed and a completion certificate was issued on 23rd March, 1990. A special notice was served on Rajaram Yashwant Sawant on 24th July, 1990 for fixing the annual rateable value. Mr.Sawant accepted the proposed rateable value and informed the petitioner-Corporation to submit the bills to each of the occupiers of the property. Accordingly, the rateable value for shop No.3 occupied by the respondent was fixed at Rs.6,200/- on the basis that the area of the shop was 358 sq.ft. On a representation made by the respondent it was found that a shop admeasures 318 sq.ft. and therefore the rateable value was reduced to Rs.5,500/-. 3. Not being satisfied with this reduction, the respondent preferred Municipal Appeal No.41 of 1991 challenging the annual rateable value which was fixed for the shop occupied by her. The respondent contended that she had occupied a residential flat in the same building for which the rateable value was much less. It was therefore contended that the rateable value for the shop premises should be calculated on the same basis as for the residential premises. 4. The Small Causes Court found that although the premises occupied by the respondent is for a commercial purpose, it was not necessary to fix the rateable value at a higher rate as the standard rent for both the commercial and residential premises would be the same. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed and the rateable value for shop No.3 was reduced from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.1,720/-. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Corporation has filed the present Petition. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that after receiving a complaint that the area of the shop was less than 358 sq.ft., the Corporation calculated the rateable value on the area of 318 sq.ft. and passed the assessment order on 18th February, 1991. Being aggrieved by this decision, the Corporation has filed the present Petition. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that after receiving a complaint that the area of the shop was less than 358 sq.ft., the Corporation calculated the rateable value on the area of 318 sq.ft. and passed the assessment order on 18th February, 1991. He submits that the Small Causes Court has erred in reducing the rateable value of commercial premises to the same level as the residential premises when in law different rates can be fixed. He brings to my notice the proviso to Section 129 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation’s Act, 1949 in support of his submissions. The learned Advocate also points out that although an appeal is provided under Section 411 of the Act, it can be filed only when the rateable value is fixed in excess of Rs.2,000/-. He points out that only remedy for the Corporation in the present case was to file a writ petition since the rateable value fixed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court was below Rs.2,000/-. 6. Section 129 stipulates the ingredients of property taxes and at what rate they are leviable. The proviso to Section 129 reads as follows :- "Provided that the Corporation may, when fixing under section 99 or section 150 the rate at which general tax shall be levied for any official year or part of an official year, determine that the rate leviable in respect of buildings and lands or portions of buildings and lands in which any particular class of trade or business is carried on shall be higher than the rate fixed in respect of other buildings and lands or portions of buildings and lands by an amount not exceeding one-half of the rate so fixed." 7. Thus, there can be no dispute that the rates of taxes for residential premises and commercial premises need not be the same. The rateable value is dependant on the standard rent which would not be the same for both commercial and residential premises. 8. In my opinion, the Small Causes Court has erred in reducing the rateable value from the value fixed by the Corporation. The reasons set out in the judgment are incorrect and are not in consonance with the law relating to fixation of the annual rateable value. 9. 8. In my opinion, the Small Causes Court has erred in reducing the rateable value from the value fixed by the Corporation. The reasons set out in the judgment are incorrect and are not in consonance with the law relating to fixation of the annual rateable value. 9. In the circumstances, the order of the Small Causes Court is set aside. Rule made absolute. 10. No order as to costs.