M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's appeal and it arises out of a proceeding for assessment of compensation of a requisitioned premises.
(2.) The defendant State of West Bengal requisitioned the ground floor portion of 7/1E, Lindsey Street and 7/1D, Lindsey Street situate at the junction of Madge Lane and Lindsey Street facing the Hog Market, under Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The requisitioned premises comprise a floor area of 2521 square feet for the room and an area of 1677 square feet for the Mezanine floor and other spaces. The L. A. Collector on behalf of the Government offered a sum of Rs. 1450/- per month inclusive of all taxes and costs of essential repairs as monthly compensation for the requisitioned premises. The respondent not having agreed to the said amount of monthly compensation as assessed by the L. A. Collector there was a reference to the Arbitrator for the assessment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 (1) (b) of the Act, The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per month exclusive of occupier's share of Municipal tax and costs of repairs, with effect from Tune 10, 1958, on which date admittedly the premises was taken possession of by the Government from the respondent. According to the expert (P.W. 1) who was examined as a witness by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator, the monthly compensation should be at the rate of Rs. 85/- per 100 square feet for the room and half the rate for the mezanine floor and other spaces. The learned Arbitrator, however, assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per 100 square feet and half that rate for the mezanine floor and other spaces. The compensation thus assessed at the said rate comes to Rupees 2,500/- per month. The learned Arbitrator awarded the said sum of Rs. 2,500/-inclusive of all Municipal taxes and costs of essential repairs, as monthly compensation for the requisitioned premises payable to the respondent with effect from June 10, 1958. The learned Arbitrator also directed that the respondent would be entitled to interest at the rate of 4% on the amount of monthly compensation with effect from June 10, 1958, till the date of withdrawal, if any, of any part of the compensation and further interest at the same rate on the balance of the final award till payment or deposit of the same by the State of West Bengal. Hence, this appeal by the appellant State of West Bengal. The respondent has also filed a cross-objection challenging the assessment of the monthly compensation at Rs. 2,500/- per month as made by the learned Arbitrator and claiming that the compensation should be exclusive of Municipal taxes and costs of repairs. Further, the respondent in his cross-objection claimed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the unpaid amount of compensation.
(3.) The entire building of which the requisitioned premises is a part was let to Mazdas Ltd., who in its turn sublet a portion thereof to M/s. Ruby Ltd. It is not disputed before us that the compensation of the requisitioned premises has to be determined in accordance with cl. 2 (ii) of the proviso to Section 11 of the Act. On behalf of the respondent the rents paid by the tenants of premises Nos. 7/1A and 7/1B, Lindsey Street and premises No, 6/ 3B and portion of 6/1, Lindsey Street were relied upon for the purpose of showing that the rents payable by the tenants of those premises were exclusive of occupier's share of Municipal taxes. According to the appellants the rent which was payable by Mazdas Ltd. to the respondent should be taken as proper guide for the assessment of compensation of the requisitioned premises. The learned Arbitrator, however, came to the finding that the rent paid by the sub-tenant M/s. Ruby Ltd. should form the proper basis for the assessment of compensation and relying upon the same, the learned Arbitrator assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/-per 100 square feet for the room and half that rate for the mezanine floor, other spaces, etc. After carefully considering the evidence of the parties, we are of the view that the learned Arbitrator was justified in relying upon the portion occupied by M/s. Ruby Ltd. as the proper comparable unit for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the requisitioned premises.;