Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The appellants are admittedly owners of the Holding No. 2A, Indra Biswas Road. The Corporation of Calcutta sued them for recovery of Rs. 1,503.91 P. as the arrear consolidated rates in owners' share in respect of Premises No. 4, Indra Biswas Road for the periods mentioned hereinafter and also for interest payable upon the said amount. The learned Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah dismissed the said suit. The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, has allowed the appeal of the Corporation of Calcutta and has decreed the suit in preliminary form. Hence, this second appeal at the instance of the defendant-owners.
(2.) The Corporation of Calcutta had claimed recovery of the said owners'share of the rates from 3rd quarter, 1955-56 to 2nd quarter, 1957-58 at the rate of Rs. 37 45P. per quarter. The Corporation of Calcutta further claimed recovery of owners' share for the 4th quarter, 1957-58 at the rate of Rs. 51.19P. per quarter up to the 4th quarter, 1962-63. The Corporation also claimed that owners' share at the rate of Rs. 56.19P. was due for 3rd quarter, 1965-66 and also owners' share at the rate of Rs. 62.44P. from the 4th quarter, 1965-66 to the 2nd quarter, 1969-70 together with interest. The total amount payable for the aforesaid periods was alleged to be Rs. 3,051/- after deducting Rs. 1,533.91 P. paid by a cheque by the owners. The Corporation prayed for recovery of the balance amount and for creating a charge for the same upon the holding in question.
(3.) In my view, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly overruled the contention of the defendant-appellants that the aforesaid increase in the consolidated rates were invalid and that the amounts claimed were irrecoverable. The defendant-appellants impugned that the said periodical revisions of the consolidated rates payable in respect of the suit premises on the ground that notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were not served upon them. Section 184 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 "lays down that every valuation under section 172 of the said Act shall subject to the provisions of sections 181, 182 and 183 be final. There is no evidence that the owners of the premises had filed objections under section 181 of the Calcutta Municipal Act against the aforesaid periodical, increases made in the valuation of the suit holding. They did not appeal to the Court of Small Causes under section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The burden of proof was upon the defendants to prove that the Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta, never gave them any special notice under section 181 of the said Act after increasing the valuation of the holding. According to the averments made in the plaint, the valuation of the holding was revised at least on four different occasions.;