Anil K.Sen, J. - (1.) These 7 Rules, obtained by the Corporation of Calcutta on as many as 7 revisional applications, raise a fundamental question as to the mode of assessment of annual value under Section 168 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of buildings which are actually let out to tenants on rent agreed but not fixed by the Controller under the Rent Restriction Act. Such a question arose before the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, in 7 municipal appeals now pending before him though at an interlocutory stage and the said question having been decided against the Corporation of Calcutta by the learned Chief Judge by an order dt. June 30, 1980, the Corporation of Calcutta has now challenged that order in these revisional applications. Both the parties now before us have waived all objections to our deciding the issue at this stage on a revisional application and have invited as to decide on review of the position in law, the correct method to be adopted for assessment of the annual value of buildings so let out to tenants and thus shorten the litigation. The question raised is as to whether the Corporation can assess the annual value of a building which has been let out to tenants having regard to the contractual rent payable therefor when the standard rent of such a building had not been fixed by the Controller in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956
(2.) We may refer to the facts of one of the appeals, namely, Municipal Appeal No. 182 of 1972 out of which these rules arise to appreciate how the dispute now brought over to us did arise. The respondent before us raised a multi-storeyed building at premises No. 20, Abdul Hamid Street previously known as British India Street, Calcutta. The building was so raised after the year 1956. By a notice dt. Oct. 10, 1966, issued under Section 180 of the said Act, the Corporation proposed to assess the annual value of the said building to the extent then constructed at Rs. 63,365 with effect from 3rd quarter of 1966-67 until a fresh valuation was made. The respondent preferred an objection u/s. 181 of the said Act and the Special Officer II in disposing of the said objection reduced the valuation to Rs. 49,368. Being aggrieved by the order of the said officer, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, which was registered as Municipal Appeal No. 182 of 1972.
(3.) On May 31, 1974, the respondent filed a petition in the said appeal praying for permission to examine an expert valuer as a witness to prove the cost of construction of the said premises. Such a prayer was made on the plea that for the purpose of assessing the annual value of the disputed premises under Section 168 of the said Act, fair rent thereof should be determined on the basis of actual cost of construction of the building and the market value of the land as envisaged by Section 8 (i) (d) of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, since the building had been constructed after the year 1956.;