P.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal at the instance of one of the claimants arises out of an application for apportionment of the awarded money deposited on the acquisition of Premises No. 50, Prince Anwar Shah Road under the Tollygunge Municipality. The respondents also claimed for apportionment of the whole amount. The Corporation of Calcutta also applied for the arrears of taxes out of the awarded money and the appellants herein are the landlords of the premises acquired. The acquisition of 7 cottahs 1 chhitack 11 square feet of land appertaining to the premises No. 50, Prince Anwar Shah Road was made by the Government of West Bengal for the Housing Accommodation Scheme in the Case No. H.S. No. VI 3 of 1964 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The award was made in favour of the Corporation to the extent of Rs. 8073.27 p in favour of the appellants Rs. 80/- only and in favour of the claimants who are respondents before us to the extent of Rs 44,930,06. Being aggrieved by the said order of the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal present appellants preferred the present appeal.
(2.) Mr. Bakshi on behalf of the appellants contended that the Boses claimants are not entitled to the money or in any case they are entitled only to the extent of 2/5 of the money awarded and the Tribunal was patently wrong in allowing 20 times of the rental to the landlords only. Admittedly the Boses were recorded as raiyati stithiban tenants under the Roys landlords at an annual rental of Rs. 44/-. This was so recorded in CS. Record. The property was in possession of Bombay Industrial Trust limited but they sold the same to the Boses. It is urgued by Mr Bakshi that the landlords are entitled to the compensation to the extent of 2/5 of the money awarded and the Tribunal was wrong in making the award. Mr. Bakshi did not challenge the award made in favour of the Corporation of Calcutta. Mr. Bakshi read upon the case reported in ILR 53 Cal. 407 and AIR 1971 Cal 180 in support of his contention. Mr. Bakshi further contended that in view extension of the Calcutta Municipal Act to Tollygunde. the right, title and interest of the parties which has also been vested before the extension, continues to remain inforce and continues to guide the parties as 1951 Calcutta Municipal Act has not teen extended to Tollygunge.
(3.) Mr Bidyut Kumar Banerjee on behalf of the respondents however contended that the appellants are not entitled to more than 20 times of the rental and relied upon the reported in ILR 30 Cal. 801, 5 CLJ, 662, 20 Weekly Reporter, 370 and ILR 17 Cal., 144 in support of his contention.;