SINHA, J. - (1.) A common question of law arises in this application and in five others, which have all been heard together. (Matter No. 135 of 1954 Karhani Properties v. The Corporation of Calcutta Matter No. 67 of 1954 - - Dr. Subodh Kumar Ganguly - -v - - Assessor Calcutta Corporation and ors; Matter No. 29 of 1955 Pataki Chandra Muttylal - -v - - The Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta and ors; Matter No. 45 of 1955 Bepin Behari Sadhukhan - -v - - Corporation of Calcutta and Matter No. 59 of 1955 Sankar Narayan Gooptu - -v - - The Corporation of Calcutta. The point arises in the following manner. Both under the Calcutta Municipal Acts 1923 and 1951, the unit of assessment is either 'land' or where there is a structure upon it, the 'land' and 'building'. The word 'building' has been denned (See Section 5 (6)). This unit is commonly referred to as 'Premises' although, the word 'Premises' is not itself defined. Thus, when we speak of a municipal premises, we generally mean, a building which includes the outhouses, boundary walls, etc., together with the land appertaining to the building. (See Corporation of Calcutta v. Moti Chand . But, both under the Act of 1923 (Section 135) and under the Act of 1951 (Section 176) a part of a premises could be separately assessed from the rest of the premises. I am of course considering the case of a common ownership. Where, the premises is subdivided because the ownership has been Sub -divided, that is quite another thing. (Section 174) Even in these applications, the Corporation has not urged that in such a case, there must still be one unit of assessment. But even where one owner had a large building, which was let out to a number of tenants, he frequently subdivided the same into a number of different premises. This was primarily done to meet the case of vacancies. In order to get remission of taxes for vacancies, notice has to be given to the Corporation. This could be clone effectively if the individual tenants had different premises numbers. Prom the point of view of the Corporation, while the Act of 1923 was in operation, it made little difference, because under Section 124, there was one fixed rate for calculating the consolidated rate (not exceeding 23 per cent, of the annual valuation). The position has however changed under the Act of 1951. Now, under Section 165, we have a graduated rate. Thus, the larger the unit, the increase in rate is progressively larger. The rate does not work out cumulatively but in progression. It is therefore not in the interest of the Corporation to sub -divide a large premises into several units. It is to its interest to have as large a unit as is possible, in every case. Inevitably therefore, it has attempted to undo what has been done in the past. Where one building under one ownership was subdivided in the past into many units, it has attempted to amalgamate them into smaller units. The two questions that have arisen therefore are; (1) Can the Corporation effect such an amalgamation? (2) If it has power to amalgamate, has such power been exercised in accordance with law? Before I proceed to deal with the matter it would be useful to analyse what has happened in the cases under consideration. I have set out below the position as appears from the pleadings. CaseNo.Owner.Previouspremises numbers.Premisesnumber after amalgamation. 128 of1954.Estateof Thaddeus M.Thaddeus.No. 1to 44 Park Street, commonly known as 'Park mansions' 44separate premises. No. 1(consisting of old Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36). No. 2(consisting of old Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 37 38). No. 3 (consisting of oldNos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 40,41, 42). No. 4 (consisting of old Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 43). No. 5 (consisting of old Nos. 25,26, 27, 44). 5 separate premises135 Of1954.KarnaniProperties Ltd.Nos.21, 23, 25 -A, 25 -B, 27 -A, 27 -B, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 55 and 57 Park Street, Calcutta. No. 21(consisting of old Nos. 21 and 23). No. 27A (consisting of old Nos. 25A, 25B and 27A). No. 27B. No. 29(consisting of 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 55 and 57). 4 separate premises67 of1954.Dr.Subodh Kumar Ganguly.27A,27B, and 27C, Chittaranjan Avenue.27,Chittaranjan Avenue. Three premises.One premises.29 Of1955.PatakiChandra Muttymull and his brothers, the respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 2 2/1and 2/2 Wellington Street.2Wellington Street. Three premises.One premises.45 of1955.Bepin' Behari Sadhu -khan.115A,115B, 115C, 115D, 115E, 115F, 115G,115H, Dhurrumtolla Street. 115A,Dhurrumtollah Street (consisting of old Nos. 115A, 115B, 115C, 115D, 115E, 115F, 115G, and 115H). 1Aand 1B Hungerford StreetNo. 1,Hungerford Street (consisting of old Nos. 1A and 1B). 10 premises.Two premises.59 of1955.SankarNarayan Gooptu 3A, 3B, Chowringhee Road.3A,Chowringhee Road (consisting of old Nos. 3A and 3B). Two premises.One premises. It will be observed that though the Corporation claims that the amalgamations have been made where there is one building, it is not as if one single building has invariably been given a single number. Even in the same building, well defined and separated portions have been allotted different numbers. Thus, while theoretically the Corporation claims to have the power of amalgamating the whole of the Park Mansions into one single premises, in fact, it has been numbered into five different premises. If the Corporation has the power of amalgamation then this is more a concession than an excess of jurisdiction. The question is whether the Corporation has the power of amalgamation at all. So far, I have been talking of the 'Corporation' having power. The municipal Government of Calcutta is vested in the Corporation (Section 24). But under the 1951 Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the municipal authorities charged with carrying out the provisions of the Act are three in number, viz. (1) the Corporation (2) the standing committees and (3) the Commissioner. Subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the entire executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act vests in the Commissioner (Section 28). It is the Commissioner who is said to be vested with the power of amalgamation of different premises into one. I will now proceed to examine the provisions of the Act. Chapter XI of the Act deals with the imposition of the consolidated rate. As already mentioned, Section 165 establishes the rate at which the consolidated rate is to be charged. The rate is a graduated one, increasing progressively with the annual valuation. Section 172 deals with the general valuation, whereby the annual value is determined, ward -wise, and such annual valuation remains in force for a period of six years and may be revised thereafter at the termination of successive periods of six years (Section 172 (2)). It is plain therefore that the computation of the annual value of a given premises at a general valuation may be - (a) A first valuation, when it has never bee valued before; (b) A revised valuation or a revaluation when it has already been valued before. It has been streneously contended before me that 'Revised Valuation' under Section 172 (2) is different from 'Revaluation'. I am unable to see the distinction - - If an existing valuation is revised it must amount to revaluation. I am therefore unable to accept the argument that 'Revaluation', can only be under Section 172 (3). That Sub -section contains several exceptions to the rule that a valuation can only, be made at the time of General Valuation and then successively after the expiry of every six years. For example, notwithstanding the six years rule, a Bustee with huts upon it may be valued annually if the Standing Finance Committee approves of it and shall be so valued if the owner applies for it (Section 172 (3) (a)). Then again if during the currency of any six -year period, a new building is erected or an existing building is reconstructed or substantially altered or improved or there is a substantial demolition or depreciation it may be revalued. (Section 172 (3) (c) and (d)).
(2.) SECTION 174 deals with the case of Sub -division of ownership during the currency of the six year period. If the subdivision is into separate and independent portions capable of separate enjoyment in conformity with the provisions of the Act, then of course separate numbers must be assigned and the premises assessed separately. (Section 174 (iii) ) In other cases, power has been given to assess separately without assigning separate numbers (i) to allot separate numbers and assess separately, even if the portions are incapable of being independent entities in conformity with the provisions of the Act (ii) Under Section 176, the Commissioner may in his discretion assess any outhouse appurtenant to a building, or any portion of a building or land appertaining to any premises separately from the rent of such premises. So far, we have not come across any provision for amalgamation. This power is said to arise by reasonable implication from Sections 175 and 207 of the Act. The relevant provisions are set out below: '175, If any land or building bearing two or more municipal numbers, or portions thereof, be amalgamated into one or more new premises, theCommissioner shall assess them, on amalgamation, after assigning to them one or more numbers, as the case may be, for the purposes of this chapter. Provided that no assessment on amalgamation of premises shall be made by the Commissioner unless there is a cause for the revaluation of any such premises except on an application being made to him by the owner or owners thereof, in which case such assessment, if made, shall remain in force for the unexpired portion of the period prescribed by Section 172, Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) or Sub -section (4). Provided also that the total assessment on amalgamation shall not be greater than the sum of the previous assessments of the several premises amalgamated except when there is any revaluation of any of the said premises.'
(3.) SECTION 207 provides that when objection to a valuation has been made under Section 181, the consolidated rate shall, pending the final determination of the objection, be payable on the previous valuation in the usual manner. There is however a proviso which is very important. This is as follows: 'Provided that - (i) If any premises have, for the purposes of valuation under Section 172, been for the first time valued or subdivided or amalgamated with any other premises, and an objection to the valuation thereof has been made under Section 181, then theconsolidation rate shall, pending the final determination of the objection be paid on such valuation, ....' ;