632 8 0 per month.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 15,1956, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original order No.
1 filed objections to the said assessment under s. 139 of the Act.
1 filed an appeal in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, and the learned Small Causes Judge allowed the appeal and fixed the annual valuation, for the purpose of assessment, at Rs.
Meanwhile under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Temporary Provision Act, 1950 W.B. XVII of 1950 , hereinafter called the Rent Control Act , the standard rent of the said premises was fixed by the Rent Controller the rent was fixed at Rs, 550 per month with effect from April, 1951, and at Rs, 632 8 0 per month with effect from August, 1951.
The Special Officer disallowed all the objections and companyfirmed the assessment.
Respondent No.
That was on the basis of the standard rent of Rs.
The Corporation of Calcutta fixed the annual valuation of the said premises at a sum of Rs.
14,093 and directed the same to take effect from the second quarter of 1950 51.
The High Court by a majority agreed with the Small Causes Judge and dismissed the appeal.
In fixing the annual valuation, the said Corporation took as basis Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
349 of 1953.
One of the objections raised was that the Corporation had numberpower to fix the annual valuation at a figure higher than the standard rent.
The Corporation of Calcutta questioned the companyrectness of the said Judgment by preferring an appeal to the High Court at Calcutta.
1,450 as the monthly rental value of the premises.
On June 20, 1950, numberice of the assessment based on the said annual valuation was served on the respondents.
The respondents are the owners of premises No.
296, Bowbazzar Street, Calcutta.
Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.
Hence the present appeal.
6,831.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by certificate from the order of the High Court at Calcutta raises the question of the true interpretation of the provisions of s. 127 a of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 hereinafter called the Act .
268 of 1958.
P. Maheshwari, for respondents Nos.
C. Chatterjee and S. Ghose, for the appellant.
August 8.
1, 2 and 4.
