Judgment

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).

2. The respondents are the owners of premises No. 296, Bowbazaar Street, Calcutta. 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. In fixing the annual valuation, the said Corporation took as basis Rs. 1,450 as the monthly rental value of the premises. On June 20, 1950, notice of the assessment based on the said annual valuation was served on the respondents. Respondent No. 1 filed objections to the said assessment under S. 139 of the Act. Meanwhile under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (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. One of the objections raised was that the Corporation had no power to fix the annual valuation at a figure higher than the standard rent. The Special Officer disallowed all the objections and confirmed the assessment. Being aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 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. 6,831. That was on the basis of the standard rent of Rs. 632-8-0 per month. The Corporation of Calcutta questioned the correctness of the said judgment by preferring an appeal to the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court by a majority agreed with the Small Causes Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.

3. The main contention of Mr. N. C Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation, is that under S. 127(a) of the Act the Corporation has to ascertain only the hypothetical rent realisable from a hypothetical tenant at the time of assessment and not the actual rent payable at that time by any tenant, and therefore it is not bound to take into consideration the standard rent fixed under the Rent Control Act.

4. A subsidiary point raised in the appeal is as to the precise meaning of the phrase "at the time of assessment occurring in S. 127(a) of the Act.

5. The problem presented depends for its solution on the interpretation of the provisions of S. 127(a) of the Act. The said section reads :

"the annual value of land, and the annual value of any building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let, 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 to 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 to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent."

We shall first look at the provisions of the section to ascertain the meaning. The crucial words are "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 dictionary meaning of the words "to let is "grant use of for rent or hire . It implies that the rent which the landlord might realise if the house was let is the basis for fixing the annual value of the building. The criterion, therefore, is the rent realisable by the landlord and not the value of the holding in the hands of the tenant. This aspect has been emphasized by the Judicial Committee in B. N. Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta, 74 Ind App 1 : (AIR 1947 PC 50). The question for determination in that case was whether the assessment of a certain premises to the consolidated rate was made in accordance with the provisions of S. 127(a) of the Calcutta Mu