Shampa Sarkar - (1.) The Kolkata Municipal Corporation is the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner was the respondent in M.A.A. 1072 of 2008. The said appeal was disposed of by the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 2nd Bench, by an order dated September 5, 2017. The order of the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with regard to the annual valuation was modified and the annual valuation of the premises concerned was fixed at Rs.97,970/-. The Hearing Officer had fixed the annual valuation at Rs.2,85,890/- with effect from 4th Quarter of 2004-2005.
(2.) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order impugned is perverse as the learned tribunal has failed to record any reason while fixing the reasonable rent of the premises in question for both residential and non-residential area of the locality around Dilkhusa Street at Rs.1.00 per sq. ft. per month with effect from 4th quarter of 2004-05. It is further submitted that both the parties had referred to decisions of the tribunal with regard to fixation of annual valuation in appeals with reference to Dr. Biresh Guha Street and also AJC Bose Road. However, according to Mr. Ghosh, the tribunal has neither accepted the rate referred to by the assessee nor rejected the rate referred to by the KMC but, has arbitrarily decided that the annual valuation should be fixed at Rs.97,970/-. While fixing such annual valuation the learned tribunal has not even discussed as to why and how the Hearing Officer had erred in fixing the annual valuation at Rs.2,85,890/-. It is further contended by Mr. Ghosh that the building comprises of three floors and also is used for non-residential purpose and, thus, the annual valuation could not be as low as Rs.97,970/-.
(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee/opposite party, submits that the revisional application could not be entertained by this Court on account of the delay in filing the same. He submits that there has been delay of two years and three months. He further submits that the explanation of delay was not acceptable. According to Mr. Chakraborty, on account of such delay a right has accrued in favour of his clients and, as such, entertaining the revisional application after two years and three months will be causing irreparable loss and injury to the opposite party. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the explanation for such delay was not bona fide but the usual explanation of the file being kept pending and the red tape involved in the process was given by the petitioner. In support of his contention, Mr. Chakraborty has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 1) State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. vs. Amar Nath Yadav, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 and 2) Bithika Mazumdar vs. Sagar Pal, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 748 as also two orders of this Court in the matter of 1) The Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Smt. Shibani Mukherjee, reported in 2017 (3) CLJ (Cal) 593 and 2) The order dated July 26, 2018 in the mater of Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Subhas Chandra Halder and anr., in C.O. 882 of 2018.;