Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—This is an appeal under Section 411 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act at the instance of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenging the judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad in M.V. Appeal No. 98/2006 holding the appeal premises as non commercial for the purposes of assessment of tax and directing them to issue fresh bill considering the appeal premises as non commercial. 2. Short facts are that the premises situated in Ward TPS-3 Gujarat College bearing S. No.533 and tenament No. 0512-05-0376-001H was owned by the present respondent-original claimant. He was using the same as a lawyers office. In respect of this premises, the appellant-Corporation issued tax bill demand notice bearing No. 1041 for the years 2001 to 2007 treating it as a commercial premises. The present respondent-original claimant filed appeal being Municipal Valuation Appeal No. 98/2006 before the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad after considering the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for both the sides and the materials placed before him passed the judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 as stated in Para-1 of this judgment, giving rise to the present appeal. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that a short but interesting question that requires consideration in this appeal is as to whether the premises in question i.e. a lawyers office can be assessed to tax treating it as a commercial premises. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation argued that the appeal premises being used as a lawyers office has been rightly assessed as a commercial premises and therefore the Municipal Tax Bill No. 1041 for the years 2001 to 2007 issued by the Corporation to the respondent-original claimant is quite legal and valid. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-original claimant has submitted that the rate per sq.meter charged by the appellant-Corporation at Rs. 22/-, the factor F2 charged at Rs. 7/- per sq.meter and the factor 3 per sq.meter also at Rs. 7/- are illegal in as much as the appellant-Coporation has wrongly assessed the tax in respect of the presmises treating it as a commercial premises. 22/-, the factor F2 charged at Rs. 7/- per sq.meter and the factor 3 per sq.meter also at Rs. 7/- are illegal in as much as the appellant-Coporation has wrongly assessed the tax in respect of the presmises treating it as a commercial premises. The learned Counsel further submitted that the premises in question is not a shop or commercial establishment under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act . In order to substantiate his say, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the decision rendered in the case of V. Sasidharan vs. M/s. Peter and Karunakar and Ors., Reported in AIR 1984 SC 1700 wherein it has been held as under: “Office of lawyer or firm of lawyer is not commercial establishment( Commercial establishment - Lawyers office not a commercial establishment.)” According to the learned Counsel, the learned Judge was perfecelty justified in passing the impugned order. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the appeal premises is being used as a lawyers office; that it is situated in a commercial building and commercial zone and has never been used as a residential premises. 8. It is by now well settled that when a premises is exclusively run as an office, it is clearly a non domestic use and when there is non domestic use, commercial rates are to be charged as can be seen from the decision rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Shiv Narayan and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2000) dated 27.10.2005, the relevant porition of which reads as under: “As the user is admittedly not “domestic” it would fall in the category of “commercial and non domestic”. In such cases even for “non domestic” use the commercial rates are to be charged. Exclusively running an office is clearly a “non-domestic” use” 9. Here, in the instant appeal, as discussed above, the premises in question is situated in a commercial premises, being used as a lawyers office and has never been used for residential purpose, and therefore, undoubtedly it would fall in the category of “commercial and non-domestic” Thus, the view taken in the case of V. Sasidharan” case (Supra) stands distinguished. 10. Here, in the instant appeal, as discussed above, the premises in question is situated in a commercial premises, being used as a lawyers office and has never been used for residential purpose, and therefore, undoubtedly it would fall in the category of “commercial and non-domestic” Thus, the view taken in the case of V. Sasidharan” case (Supra) stands distinguished. 10. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court cited above, we hold that the premises in question has to be assessed to tax treating the same as a commercial premises. 11. In the result , we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Court No. 12, Ahmedabad in M.V. Appeal No. 98/2006. There will be no orders as to costs.