Das, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the Corporation of Calcutta against a decision of Sri S. C. Mukherjee, Judge. Small Cause Court, Sealdah, dated the 26th of April. 1952, setting aside an assessment made by Special Officer No. III of the Corporation of Calcutta.
(2.) At the last general revaluation the disputed premises being No. 9C, South Sinthi Road, was assessed by the Corporation on the following basis : Premises No. 9C. South Sinthi Road, and premises No. 9B. South Sinthi Road, belonged to the respondent Dhurjati Charn Ghosh. It appears from the objection Register that the respondent had one cotta of land appertaining to premises No. 9B, South Sinthi Road, transferred to premises No. 9C, South Sinthi Road. It appears also that a portion of premises No. 9C, South Sinthi Road, on which certain khola kutcha huts stood was in the possession of tenants. There are two other kutcha corrugated iron huts which were in broken condition. The remaining portion which was vacant land was in the possession of the owner.
(3.) The Corporation of Calcutta proceeded to assess the said portion by calculating the annual value on the basis of the rent reasonably payable by the tenants. In this case the Corporation of Calcutta acting on that basis calculated the annual value of this portion at Rs. 564 and gave the owner two deductions of 10 per cent, each. The remaining- portion of the said premises which was in the occupation of the owner was assessed to annual value on the basis of reason-able rent which the vacant portion might reasonably yield. This sum was calculated ultimately at the rate of Rs. 7 per cotta. The annual value so ascertained in respect of the portion in the occupation of tenants was added to the annual value of the vacant land above calculated and the aggregate sum was taken to be the annual value of the entire premises. The assessee preferred an objection to the assessment made by the Corporation which was heard by the Special Officer No. III who reduced the annual valuation to Rs. 777 by his order dated the 20th September, 1950. Being dissatisfied with the order Special Officer No. III the assessee preferred an appeal under section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act to the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, set aside the assessment on the ground that it was ultra vires. The reason given by the learned Judge is that the Corporation has valued the premises No. 9C, South Sinthi Road, by subdividing the same into two parts, namely, the portion where the huts stood and the portion which was vacant land. In his opinion this procedure was unwarranted by law. In support of his view the learned Judge relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dominion of India v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 53 C.W.N. 620) and a decision in the case of Governor-General of India in Council v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 52 C.W.N. 173). In my opinion the learned Judge has entirely misunderstood what was laid down in these two cases. In the case of Governor-General of India in Council v. The Corporation of Calcutta (supra) the law was thus stated:- "The building is taken along with the land and the two are assessed together as one unit. There is no rule here of valuing a building separately from the land upon which it stands and for the purpose of assessment the building is taken as a part of the land". This observation has to be read in the light of the facts of the case. In both these cases what was laid down was that if the building on a plot of land was not erected for letting purposes and was not ordinarily let, the annual value shall be calculated of the entire premises, the land and the building taken together, under section 127(b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The cases referred to were not cases which came within section 127(a) of the Act as in the present case. Section 127(a) speaks of ascertaining the annual value of land and building. Section 127(a) contemplates an assessment of land, and buildings which are erected for letting purposes or which are ordinarily let. In such cases the assessment of annual value has to be made under section 127(a). That section runs as follows: "For the purpose of assessing land and buildings to the consolidated rate,-- (a) the annual value of land, and the annual value of any building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let, shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten per cent, for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent;" Section 127(a) thus applies to cases where there is a plot of land which is partly in the occupation of the owner and on the remaining portion of which, there is a building which is "erected for letting purposes" or "ordinarily let" as in the present case. In such a case the Corporation of Calcutta in finding out the annual value of the premises may ascertain the annual value of land on the basis that it was let and also ascertain the annual value of the building by taking the reasonable annual rent of the premises as the annual value of the building less the deduction referred to in the section. The Corporation will then add the annual value of the vacant land and the annual value of the building which was erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let, on the basis of the reasonable rent at which the building portion could have been let less deduction. The aggregate sum will represent the annual value of the premises. This is the procedure which has been followed by the Corporation of Calcutta. There is, therefore, no basis for the suggestion that the Corporation has valued the premises by subdividing the same into two parts. The basis of assessment is, therefore, correct. As the learned Judge of the Court-of Small Causes, Sealdah, did not find out whether the annual value was correctly ascertained or not we remit this case back to that Court for a decision by him on the question whether the annual value was correctly calculated in terms of section 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act.";