JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the action of Vadodara Municipal Corporation to levy municipal tax on the basis of non residential/commercial category for part of their residential premises from which they are operating their offices as advocates. 2. Brief facts are as under. The petitioners are advocates practising at Vadodara. They all occupy the premises as owners of various residential units which are either flats, tenements or bungalows, situated in Vadodara. These units are residential units situated in residential society or residential complexes. It is an undisputed position that the petitioners occupy majority of portion of these units for their residential purpose and a small portion is set apart for their legal practise. In short, the petitioners run their offices in small area in their own houses. 3. The Vadodara Municipal Corporation carries a belief that to the extent the petitioners are occupying their houses for residential purposes, the same would be charged as residential use. The remaining area used by the petitioners for the purpose of their office would be charged as commercial or non residential rate. The Vadodara Municipal Corporation has on such basis issued special notices followed by tax bills. The petitioners have produced at Annexure-A1 to A12 all such notices and bills. From such notices and bills, it can be seen that even as per the Vadodara Municipal Corporation, major portions of these units are occupied by the petitioners for their residential use and relatively smaller portions are set apart for their legal work. For example at Annexure-A1, we have a bill dated 18.6.2014 issued by Vadodara Municipal Corporation to petitioner No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 5,173/- which shows that built-up area of 133.69 sq. mtrs was under residential use. At Annexure-2, is another bill issued by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation of the same date for a sum of Rs. 9,037/- concerning the same property pertaining to 48.39 sq. mtrs charged at commercial rate. Like-wise at Annexure-A3, we have a bill dated 26.6.2014 for a sum of Rs. 4,395/- concerning built-up area of 45.44 sq. mtrs. for residential use issued against petitioner No. 2 At Annexure-A5, we have bill of the same date issued to petitioner No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 7,495/- for area of 9.28 sq. mtrs. charged at commercial rate. Like-wise at Annexure-A3, we have a bill dated 26.6.2014 for a sum of Rs. 4,395/- concerning built-up area of 45.44 sq. mtrs. for residential use issued against petitioner No. 2 At Annexure-A5, we have bill of the same date issued to petitioner No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 7,495/- for area of 9.28 sq. mtrs. charged at commercial rate. Similarly, at Annexure-A11, we have bill dated 11.6.2014 issued to petitioner No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 2,355/- for residential area under occupation of 71.35 sq. mtrs. At Annexure-A12, we have a bill of the same date issued to petitioner No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 2,566/- for area of 17.15 sq. mtrs charged at commercial rate. 4. We notice that insofar as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, no such bills are produced. We therefore, do not decide his case. 5. From the above materials, it can be seen that the bills in question pertain to the same property for which Vadodara Municipal Corporation has issued two separate bills, one concerning the use by the petitioners for residential purpose and other occupied by the petitioners for their legal work which the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has charged at commercial rate. What further emerges from the record is that all these units are essentially residential units located in residential areas and occupation of the area by respective petitioners for legal work is relatable to a small portion of the total area of the property. 6. In this background, the question that arise is, whether Vadodara Municipal Corporation could have charged two separate rates? 7. Vadodara Municipal Corporation relied on section 141B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act which reads as under: "141B [General Tax] at what rate leviable.-(1) For the purposes of [clause (c) of section 141AA, general tax] shall, subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions hereinafter provided, be levied annually on buildings and lands in the City at such rate per square metre of the carpet areas of buildings and of the areas of lands (hereinafter referred to as "the rate of tax") as the Corporation may determine. (2) For the purpose of levy of tax on buildings in the City under sub-section (1), (a) the buildings may be classified into residential buildings and buildings other than residential; and (b) the Corporation may determine one rate of tax for residential buildings and the other rate of tax for buildings other than residential; Provided that it shall be lawful for the Corporation to determine for residential buildings, the carpet area of which does not exceed forty square metres, such rate of tax as is lower than the rate of tax determined for residential buildings generally under this sub-section. (3) The rate of tax determined under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) shall not- (a) in respect of residential buildings, be less than ten rupees per square metre of carpet area and more than forty rupees per square meter of carpet area, and (b) in respect of buildings other than residential, be not less than twenty rupees per square metre of carpet area and more than eight rupees per square metre of carpet area. (4) The Corporation may, subject to rules, increase or decrease or neither increase nor decrease the rate of tax determined under sub-section (1) read with sub-sections (2) and (3),- (a) in the case of residential buildings, having regard to the following factors, namely:- (i) the market value of the land in the area of the City in which the buildings are situated; (ii) the length of time of the existence of buildings. (iii) the type of the buildings, and (iv) whether the buildings are occupied by owners or tenants. (b) in the case of buildings other than residential having regard to the following factors, namely:- (i) the market value of the land in the area of the city in which the buildings are situated. (iii) the type of the buildings, and (iv) whether the buildings are occupied by owners or tenants. (b) in the case of buildings other than residential having regard to the following factors, namely:- (i) the market value of the land in the area of the city in which the buildings are situated. (ii) the length of the time of the existence of the buildings, (iii) the purpose for which the buildings are used, and (iv) whether the buildings are occupied by owners or tenants, (5) In lieu of the [general tax] leviable under sub-section (1) read with sub-sections (2) and (3), there shall be levied annually on,- (a) residential huts, and (b) residential tenements in a chawl, each such tenement having carpet area not exceeding twenty-five square metres,-such amount of tax as the Corporation may determine: Provided that the amount so determined shall not be less than such amount as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify Explanation-For the purpose of levy of tax under this section, where an addition is made to an existing building whereby the carpet area of that building is increased, such addition shall be treated as a separate building and the length of the time of its existence shall be computed from the year in which the addition is made." 8. On the other hand, petitioners strongly contended that the occupation of the premises is for residential use, only a small portion thereof is set apart for legal work. This does not change the fundamental character of the use of the building. Same building cannot be split in two parts for consideration of taxation namely, residential and non residential. Counsel for the petitioners placed relied on various decisions as was done by the counsel for the respondent. In face of such facts, we may see how different Courts have viewed this situation. 9. In a judgment dated 17.6.2013 passed in First Appeal No. 3642/2006 and connected matters in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Shantilal Ambalal Sukhadia while dealing with the First Appeal of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation against the judgment of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, Division Bench in somewhat similar circumstances observed as under: "9. 9. In a judgment dated 17.6.2013 passed in First Appeal No. 3642/2006 and connected matters in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Shantilal Ambalal Sukhadia while dealing with the First Appeal of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation against the judgment of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, Division Bench in somewhat similar circumstances observed as under: "9. In our view, if on behalf of the Corporation, no evidence is produced and the evidence produced on behalf of the respondent shows that the flat in question was also used for residence and profession, and on that basis the learned Judge has directed to consider the use of the premise as residential, such an approach cannot be said to be erroneous. We may record that had it been a case, where the proof had come on record that the flat in question was exclusively used for professional purpose or had the premise or flat been situated in a commercial complex, it might stand on a different footing and in those cases, treating the use as commercial may be justified, but in a case where a premise in part is used for residential and a portion is used for profession, the use of premise cannot be treated as commercial use." 10. Learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in case of Municipal Corporation of city of Pune v. Bhagwan Ganesh Sabne reported in 2006 (5) BCR 511, considered a question whether use of the premises by the Chartered Accountant for his profession can make him liable to taxes in respect of the premises used for the purpose of trade and business. It was held that the profession of Chartered Accountant is neither a trade nor a business. 11. The Supreme Court in case of V. Sasidharan v. M/s. Peter and Karunakar and others reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1700 in context of Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act held and observed that office of lawyers or firm of lawyers is not a commercial establishment. Like-wise in case of Devendra M. Surti v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 63, in context of Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, the Supreme Court held that a doctor's dispensary was not a commercial establishment within the meaning of the said Act. Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Junagadh v. Ashwinbhai Maniyar & Ors. Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Junagadh v. Ashwinbhai Maniyar & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) GLR 679 in context of Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, considering the question whether office of an advocate can legally be charged with tariff at commercial rate, it was held that the advocate's office falls in the category of non residential premises and question whether office of advocate is a commercial activity is not relevant. The Supreme Court in case of Chairman, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. v. Shiv Narayan & Anr. reported in 2006 (1) GLR 387 in context of Electricity (Supply) Act held that legal profession cannot be compared to trade and business. There is a distinction between professional activity and activity of commercial character. With these observations, decision in case of New Delhi Municipal Council v. Sohal Lal Sachdev reported in 2000 (2) Supreme Court Cases 494, in which broad categorisation of commercial and domestic uses for the purpose of levy of electricity charges was made, came to be referred to larger Bench. We however, need not go into such a larger issue. Since from the facts on record, we gather that all the petitioners are occupying residential units situated in residential areas or complexes for their residential purpose. Only a small portion of these units have been set apart for their legal work. That being the position, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation committed an error in splitting the properties in question for separate consideration for tax purpose. Section 141B of the BPMC Act does refer to classification of building into residential buildings and buildings other than residential use, nevertheless, it is doubtful whether such classification can be provided for the same building. If the unit was a commercial unit used by the lawyer for his legal profession or even if the entire residential unit was occupied by lawyer for his legal work, different considerations would perhaps apply. In the present case, when the predominant use of the residential unit was for residence of the owner-occupier for his family, mere setting apart a small area therein for his legal work would not change the predominant use of the property and resultantly, we do not find that Vadodara Municipal Corporation could have charged such area separately at non residential or commercial rate. 12. 12. Decision in case of R.K. Mittal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 232, relied upon by the counsel for the respondent was rendered in vastly different background. It was a case of large scale violation of Town Planning scheme and occupation by various occupiers of premises allotted by development authority for uses other than those for which they were earmarked. It was in this background the Supreme Court gave certain directions in paragraph-74 of the judgment in order to discontinue such unauthorised uses. Even in such directions in sub-paragraph-(5), the Supreme Court permitted doctors, lawyers and architects to use 30% of area on the ground floor in their premises in residential sector for running their clinics and offices. This judgment therefore, would not throw any light on the controversy at hand. 13. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed to the extent of quashing the Municipal tax bills at Annexures-A2, A5, and A12. It would however be open for the Vadodara Municipal Corporation to issue fresh bills for such properties treating the entire occupation as residential use. If the petitioners have made payment of any of the bills, same shall be adjusted against the new bills to be issued. 14. Petition is disposed of.