N.C. Mukherji, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated February 8, 1966, passed by Shri P.E. Banerjee, Judge, Second Bench of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta, in Municipal Appeal No. 149 of 1965 rejecting the claim of the Appellant.
(2.) The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows: The Special Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta by his order dated May 20,1965, assessed the annual valuation of premises No. 50 Nalini Seth Road, Calcutta at Rs. 4,360 with effect from third quarter of 1963 -64. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. It is the case of the Appellant that the assessment made by the Special Officer is illegal and excessive. The learned Judge held that the Special Officer was correct in making the assessment taking Rs. 455 per month as the rent realised by the owner. In that view of his finding the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) Mr Himangsu Kumar Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the learned Judge ought to have held on evidence that the monthly rent was Rs. 231 and not Rs. 455. He draws our attention to the evidence of A.W. 1, Sunil Kumar Mondal, examined on behalf of the Appellant. This witness states that there are three tenants in the disputed premises. Monthly rent realised is Rs. 231. Counterpart has been proved, which, is Ex -1. He further states that Munni Devi, one of the tenants, has sublet her portion. The Respondent examined one Sachindra Kumar Some, Assessing Inspector of Calcutta Corporation. He inspected, the premises and noted the names of the tenants and the rents paid by them. It is his evidence that Rs. 682 were being realised from the tenants. But in cross -examination he admits that the names of the sub -tenants under Murihi Devi have been included in the inspection report. Direct tenant under the landlord were three. This admission fully supports the evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant that the tenants under the landlord only were three. That being so, it is contended by Mr. Basu that the Special Officer and the learned Judge ought to have considered that the rent realised by the landlord was only Rs. 231 per month and that being so, the assessment was wrongly made taking Rs. 455 as monthly rent.;