Judgment Ms. B.M. Trivedi J.—With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, as recently this Court has already decided the First Appeal arising out of M.V. Appeal in respect of the same premises belonging to the appellant determining the Gross Rateable Value (hereinafter referred to as “GRV”) for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 2. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the appellant and Mr. M.R. Raval for M/s RJ Raval Associates for the respondent. 3. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent-Corporation had fixed the GRV at Rs. 1,68,720/- in respect of the premises bearing M.C. No. 799/799/86, tenament No. N.303-0021-00-0001-I, situated in Ward – Odhav – D, Ahmedabad belonging to the appellant, for the year 2000-2001. The said GRV fixed by the respondent-Corporation was challenged by the appellant before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “lower Court”) by way of M.V. Appeal No. 67/2001 contending, inter alia, that the GRV fixed by the corporation was highly improper and illegal. The lower Court vide order dated 10.3.2006 rejected the said MV Appeal No. 67/2001 preferred by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present First Appeal under sec. 411 of B.P.M.C. Act, 1949. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the appellant that the lower Court had committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering the documents produced by the appellant and in holding that there was no evidence on record substantiating the contention that the GRV fixed by the corporation was illegal and unreasonable. According to Mr. Mehta, the appellant had already produced the documents along with the list showing the earlier assessments made by the lower Court in respect of the same premises for the year 1988-89 as also 1999-2000, and the said copies of the judgments were also exhibited by the lower Court. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the advocate appearing for the appellant had expired and, therefore, the said evidence could not be brought to the notice of the lower Court, which otherwise, established that the GRV for the premises in question could not have been fixed more than Rs. 8,192/-. Pressing into service the recent order passed by this Court in respect of the same premises, Mr. 8,192/-. Pressing into service the recent order passed by this Court in respect of the same premises, Mr. Mehta submitted that the GRV for the assessment year 2000-2001 in respect of the same premises of the appellant should also be fixed at the same rate. 5. However, Mr. MR Raval learned Advocate for the respondent- Corporation relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in AIR 1994 Guj. 167 , submitted that the burden to prove that the rateable value fixed by the corporation was on higher side, was on the appellant before the lower Court, which he had miserably failed to prove and, there being no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court, the same deserves to be confirmed. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and the documents on record, more particularly, the additional affidavit filed by the appellant in the present appeal, it transpires that the appellant had already produced certain documents before the lower Court, namely, the municipal tax bills and the copies of the judgments passed by the Small Causes Court in respect of the same premises showing the GRV fixed at Rs. 8192/- for the assessment year 1998-99 and at Rs. 4688/- for the year 1999-2000. The said copies of the judgments also appear to have been exhibited by the lower Court, however, as transpiring from the impugned judgment and order, the said documents were not taken into consideration by the lower Court. It is pertinent to note that the said judgments of the lower Court fixing the GRV at Rs. 8192/- for the assessment year 1998-99 and at Rs. 4688/- for the assessment year 1999-2000 were challenged before this Court by the corporation by way of First Appeal No. 5483 of 2007 and First Appeal No. 2231 of 2007 respectively and this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2011 has confirmed the GRV fixed at Rs. 8192/- for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 in the said appeals. 7. In view of the above, as rightly submitted by Mr. Mehta, same parity is required to be followed in the present appeal also. Mr. Raval learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation has not been able to dispute the said position nor justify the GRV fixed at Rs. 8192/- for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 in the said appeals. 7. In view of the above, as rightly submitted by Mr. Mehta, same parity is required to be followed in the present appeal also. Mr. Raval learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation has not been able to dispute the said position nor justify the GRV fixed at Rs. 1,68,720/- of the said premises of the appellant, which has been found by this Court to be highly exorbitant and unreasonable. In that view of the matter, it is held that the proper and reasonable GRV of the premises in question should be fixed at Rs. 8129/- only for the assessment year 2000-2001, and the impugned order dated 10.3.2006 passed by the lower Court in M.V. Appeal No. 67/2001 deserves to be set aside. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. Shalin Mehta learned Advocate for the appellant that while granting the interim stay, pending the appeal, the appellant was directed to deposit 75% of Rs. 1,68,720/- as per order dated 20.7.2009 passed in Civil Application No. 3453 of 2009 in the present appeal and he has accordingly deposited the amount. If that be so, it is directed that the appellant would be entitled to the refund of the said amount after the deduction of GRV Rs. 8192/- fixed by this Court for the assessment year 2000-2001. 9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.3.2006 passed in M.V. Appeal No. 67/2001 is set aside. First Appeal stands allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. P P P P P