1. Dispute over whether annual valuation for municipal assessment under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 can exceed the standard rent fixed under rent control legislation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th August 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
The Corporation of Calcutta, Appellant
Versus
Sm. Padma Debi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 268 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. Ghose, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.GHOSH
B.P.MAHESHVARI, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.GHOSH
Annual valuation for municipal assessment cannot exceed the standard rent fixed under rent control laws, as rent exceeding the statutory limit is unlawful and cannot be "reasonably expected" to be realized by a landlord.
Headnote:(A) Municipal Act - Section 127(a) - Rent Control Act - Annual valuation of premises - Standard rent - Determination of "reasonable" rent - The annual value of a building is the gross annual rent at which it might reasonably be expected to let - Where a rent control statute fixes a standard rent and makes the receipt of rent in excess thereof penal, the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to let the building for a rent higher than the standard rent - Law of the land with penal consequences must be considered in ascertaining reasonable expectations of a landlord in the open market (Paras 5, 6, 7).
(B) Municipal Act - Section 127(a) - Meaning of "at the time of assessment" - Assessment commences with the making of the valuation and ends with the determination of the objection; events occurring during this period may be relied upon for assessing the annual value (Para 12).
Facts of the case:
A municipal authority fixed the annual valuation of premises based on a monthly rental value. However, a rent controller had fixed a lower standard rent for the same premises under a rent control statute. The owners challenged the valuation, contending that the annual valuation could not exceed the standard rent. The lower courts ruled in favor of the owners, fixing the annual valuation based on the standard rent.
Findings of Court:
The rental value for the purpose of assessment cannot be fixed higher than the standard rent prescribed under the rent control legislation.
Issues: Whether the "reasonable" rent for valuation purposes under municipal law is limited by the "standard rent" fixed under rent control legislation, and the interpretation of the phrase "at the time of assessment."
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that "reasonably be expected to let" must be interpreted in light of the law of the land. Since collecting rent above the standard rent is a penal offense under the rent control statute, such a rent cannot be considered "reasonable." The court distinguished foreign rating laws, noting that the local law focuses on the letting value to the owner rather than the occupation value to the tenant. Furthermore, the absence of an express prohibition in the municipal act does not imply power to exceed the standard rent when the phraseology of the section is wide enough to comprehend such a limitation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether annual valuation depends on hypothetical rent realisable from a hypothetical tenant regardless of statutory limits on standard rent. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Reasonableness in rent is governed by law; since exceeding standard rent is penal, such rent cannot be reasonably expected in an open market. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Annual valuation for municipal assessment cannot be fixed higher than the standard rent prescribed under applicable rent control laws. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 13 )
6. Can the annual valuation for municipal assessment exceed the standard rent fixed under rent control laws?
No. Annual value is based on rent a landlord can reasonably be expected to receive. Since receiving rent above the standard rent is penal and unlawful under rent control legislation, such rent cannot be considered reasonable. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 )
7. How does the Indian law of rating differ from English law regarding valuation?
English law focuses on the value of occupation by a tenant. In contrast, Indian law under the Calcutta Municipal Act focuses on the letting value of the building to the landlord. (Para 8 )
8. What is the meaning of the phrase at the time of assessment under the Calcutta Municipal Act?
Assessment commences with the making of the valuation under Section 131 and concludes with the determination of the objection under Section 140. (Para 12 )
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
