TURNER MORRISON & CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2002-7-107
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 08,2002

TURNER MORRISON AND CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) These writ petitions were filed by M/s. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. and its Director, hereinafter collectively called "the petitioner". The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as "the said premises".
(2.) Steps were taken by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Corporation") to amend the Municipal Assessment Book in relation to the said premises under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and accordingly a notice was issued on 2th' March, 1989. The petitioner by filing a writ petition challenged the said notice. Having noted the fact that the petitioner has filed an objection and that a date of hearing has been fixed to consider such objection, the Court did not interfere in the said writ petition. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and considering his objection the Hearing Officer fixed the reasonable rent of the said premises at Rs. 3,41,342/- per month by an order dated 21st March,1989. Against the order dated 2th March, 1989 the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2377 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the first petition"). As appears from the order dated 2th March, 1989 before the Hearing Officer the petitioner contended that it is collecting rent of Rs.1,74,711.52/- per month from the said premises. As against that the respondent Corporation contended that the premises is earning net rent of Rs. 3,60,272/- per month. The order dated 2th March, 1989 further records that whereas the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of its claim, the respondent Corporation has produced written statements of the tenants, details of rent receipts. inspection report etc. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with at all in the first petition.
(3.) In the first petition the petitioner also challenged the immediately prior valuation made in the similar circumstances by the order of the Hearing Officer dated 7th. October, 1988.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.