- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of a Judge, Small Cause Court, Sealdah, dated the 30th November, 1954, in an appeal under section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The premises in question is 9, Russa Road. The land in the said premises belongs to the Corporation of Calcutta. The respondent before us, Ashutosh Mukherjee Memorial Institute, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, obtained a lease of the said premises from the Corporation of Calcutta for 99 years formerly on a rent of one rupee but later on increased to Rs. 2/- per annum. The said respondent after taking a lease of the said premises constructed a pucca building on it. The area of the land in question is one bigha, 11 cottas, 13 Chhataks and 9 sq. ft. The said premises, that is, No. 9 Russa Road with the building and the land on which it was situate was assessed by the Corporation of calcutta. The said assessment was to take effect from October, 1950. The original valuation of the said premises fixed by the Corporation was reduced by the Special Officer to a total sum of Rs. 6,37,475/ -. In arriving at that valuation the land in the said premises was valued at Rs. 7,750/-per cotta and the building standing on it, after allowing an all round depreciation of 5 per cent, was valued at Rs. 3,09,832/ -. The annual valuation therefore being 5 p. c. of the said valuation, was Rs. 31,873/ -. Against the said decision of the Special Officer there was an appeal to the Small Cause Court, Sealdah, by the assessee, Ashutosh Mukherjee Memorial Institute. The learned Judge fixed the value of the buildings on the said premises at Rs. 3,82,743/ -. He arrived at the said valuation after allowing depreciation of 5 per cent in respect of that portion of the building which was constructed in 1943-44 and 8 per cent for the other parts of the building which were completed in 1934. As for the valuation of the land in the said premises the learned Judge held that the said land value should not be more than Rs. 40/ -. He came to that valuation on the basis of the rent which is paid by the assessee to the Corporation in respect of the said land which the assessee has taken on lease from the said Corporation. Against that decision of the learned Judge the present appeal has been filed by the Corporation.
(2.) BEFORE as it was contended by the learned Advocate for the Corporation that the basis of the valuation of the land in question made by the learned Judge was entirely wrong. He contended that the learned Judge should have arrived at the valuation of the land not only by reference to the lessor's interest but also to the lessee's interest; in other words, his contention way that the Corporation is not concerned with the lessee's or the lessor's interest but it was concerned with the land and in arriving at the valuation of the land what has to be seen is the value which the said land if offered for sale in the market would fetch. On that basis the learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the valuation of the land in question should have been made on the basis of Rs. 7,750/- per cotta.
(3.) ON the question of the valuation of the buildings the only submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant before us was that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing depreciation of 8 per cent on the portion of the building which was completed in 1934. The learned Judge according to him, should have retained the all round depreciation of 5 per cent which was allowed by the Special Officer of the Corporation.;