The Chief judge of the Small Caused Court rejected the said application on the ground that such evidence was neither necessary number relevant for examining the companyrectness or otherwise of the determination of the annual valuation under Section 168 1 of the Municipal Act.
By numberice dated 10.10.1966 issued under Section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Act , the respondent assessed the annual value of the said building at Rs.
The appellant filed objections to the aforesaid valuation.
After the decision of this Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor etc.
63365/ with effect from 3rd quarter of 1966 67.
A revision petition filed against the said order was rejected by the High Court of Calcutta.
New Delhi Municipal companymittee another etc.
The order of the Chief Judge Small Causes, Court, who had allowed the examination of a expert valuer, was accordingly set aside.
While disposing of the objections the special Officer reduced the value to Rs.
In order to lead evidence relating to the actual companyt of companystruction of the building, the appellant moved an application before the Small Causes Court for permission to examine an expert valuer as a witness to prove the companyt of companystruction of the said building.
It was companytended before the High Court that the decision in Dewan Daulat Rais case, and other cases where the similar view had been taken, was distinguishable as the provisions of the West Bengal Statutes were different.
Accepting this companytention, the High Court came to the companyclusion that on a companyrect interpretation of the Municipal Act and Tenancy Act, the rateable value had to be fixed on the basis of the actual rent received and number on the basis of companyt of companystruction.
it accordingly recalled its earlier order dated 7.6.1974 and allowed the appellants prayer for examining his expert valuer in order to arrive at the fair rent of the premises in accordance with the provisions of the Tendency Act.
Hence, these appeals by special leave.
The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta.
The only question which arises in these appeals relates to the determination of annual value under Section 168 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 in respect of buildings which are actually let out to tenants on rent agreed, but number fixed by the Controller under the rent Restriction Act for the purpose of assessment of property tax.
The main companytention of the appellant in the said appeal was that the annual valuation of the property ought to be fixed on the basis of fair rent as companytemplated under the Municipal Act read along with the provisions of Sections 8 1 d of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act and number on the basis of the actual rent being realised by the appellant.
49,368/ .
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The appellant companystructed a multi storey building in Calcutta after the year 1956.
1826/1998 ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. NO.
The respondent then filed appeals against the aforesaid decision of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court.
7343 of 1982.
The appeals for subsequent years for similar orders passed by the special Officer were also filed by the appellant.
7343/82 J U D G M E N T KIRPAL, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
