Kumar Kartick Chandra Mullick vs Corporation of Calcutta

G.N. Das, J.—These three appeals are on behalf of the Assessee against a decision of Shri S.K. Ray, learned Judge, sixth Bench, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta.

The premises in question in these three appeals are respectively 111B, 113B and 113G, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. These premises were assessed u/s 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The fact that the annual value of the premises should be ascertained u/s 127(a) is not disputed. The question which has been debated before us is whether the Assessee is entitled to three deductions of ten per cent, each on the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year.

The learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, has allowed two ten per cent, deductions on the said gross annual rent. The dispute is whether a third deduction of ten per cent is permissible under the law.

Mr. Ganguly, who has appeared in support of the appear has pointed out that at the previous general revaluation, the Assessee was allowed a three-fold deduction of ten per cent, each on the gross annual rent.

It is suggested that a third deduction of ten per cent, justified in the facts of the present case because portions of the premises are such as are liable to fall vacant from time to time.

The ascertainment of annual value of land or building governed by Section 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. In case of land and building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily as in the present case, the annual value shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year the year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary the maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent A deduction of ten per cent, on the gross annual rent is therefore, provided for by the statute itself. There is no statutory provision for a second deduction of ten per cent, on the gross annual rent. But it is conceded on behalf of the Calcutta Corporation that it is a settled practice of the Corporation the allow a second deduction of ten per cent, on the gross annual rent. The reason suggested is that u/s 149 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, the liability to pay a consolidated rate is shared equally by the owner and the occupier. Ordinarily, the reason able rent provided for in Section 127(a) is taken to be the rent a which the premises are actually let. It is suggested that the letting value of the premises includes a moiety share of the consolidated rate which is payable by the occupier u/s 149 But as in point of fact the owner generally pays the entire consolidated rate, the Corporation in assessing the premises to annual value u/s 127(a) grants a second deduction of ten per cent. Whatever the reason might be, for the present purpose it is not necessary for us to decide upon the legality or otherwise of the second deduction of ten per cent, as the parties are in agreement that such deductions have been correctly made, the only contest is whether a third deduction of ten per cent, on the gross annual value should be allowed. In support of his submission, Mr. Ganguly has referred us to an unreported decision of Rama Prasad Mookerjee and Renupada Mukherjee, JJ., in the case of Union of India v. Corporation of Calcutta F.M. As. 123 and 124 of 1950, unreported, decided on Sept. 9, 1952. The observations on which reliance is placed are in these terms:

In the present case we think that in addition to the allowance of two deductions by the Corporation at ten per cent, each a further deduction of seven any half per cent, should have been allowed. That would give the reasonable amount of annual rent at which the entire premises may be reasonably expected to be let from year to year.

The observations referred to above do not lay down any general rule. As the learned Judges themselves say, a further deduction of 7 1/2 per cent, was made in the facts of that case, it is well-settled that an assessing authority must in the matter of assessment be governed by the statutory provisions empowering them to assess land or building or by any rules which have statutory force. Our attention was not drawn to any provision of the statute, that is, the Calcutta Municipal Act or any rules framed thereunder having statutory force, to justify a third deduction of ten per cent. The fact that vacancies in respect of portions of the premises are likely to occur is not a relevant consideration in engrafting on Section 127(a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act an obligation on the Corporation to allow a third deduction of ten per cent. That the Act does not provide for such contingencies, namely, vacancies occurring in portions of the disputed premises will appear from an analogous provision contained, in the prov. (i) to Section 127(b) which speaks of the annual value of a bustle where again the statute provides for only one ten per cent, deduction although it is common knowledge that rente are liable to fall into arrears or vacancies are likely to occur. Cases of hardship and individual cases might be remedied by the Executive Officer under the discretionary powers vested in him u/s 146(1)(b).

In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, was right in holding that a third deduction of ten per cent, in each of the present cases was not justified u/s 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.

These appeals must accordingly fail and they are dismissed with costs.

Having regard to the fact that in the previous assessment the Corporation did allow a third ten per cent, deduction, we direct that the Appellant do pay to the Respondent only one set of hearing fee for the three appeals.

Guha Ray, J.

I agree.