( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an interesting question of law regarding the principle of assessment of building under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The point seems to be one of first impression.

( 2 ) PREMISES No. 74/e, Ashutosh Mookerjee Road, which is a five-storied building, let out to tenants, was assessed by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, at an annul value of Rs. 3,888/- at the re-valuation proceedings of 1950-51 with effect from the third quarter of the said year. The owner of the said premises objected to the assessment and it was thereupon reduced to Rs. 3,489/- on 18-12-1951. The owner then appealed to the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, under Section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and the said appeal was allowed and the annual value of the premises was reduced to Rs. 601. The present appeal has been filed by the Corporation of Calcutta against the said decision.

( 3 ) THE building in question is wholly let out to tenants and the actual rent fetched is Rs. 61-14-0 per month. There is, however, an advertisement hoarding on the roof of the building and on it is displayed a neon sign-board of Capstan Cigarette. The Calcutta Street Advertising Company which displays this sign-board pays for the hoarding a sum of Rs. 125/- per month to the owner. The Calcutta Corporation treated this income of the owner as rent within the meaning of Section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and took it into account in determining the annual letting value of the building. It was further stated by the Corporation that there was a painting on one of the walls of the building, for which the owner received a sum of Rs. 50/-, per month, and this also was taken into account in fixing the annual value of the disputed building in spite of the owner's objection that this painting did not exist at the time of the assessment. The learned Small Cause Court Judge, however, found that there was no such wall painting "in 1950 at the time of the assessment" it having been "wiped off" before that period, and that finding has not been challenged before us. As regards the income from the advertisement hoarding on the roof, the learned Judge held that the said income was not, and could not be treated as, rent and, accordingly, he fixed the annual value of the building on the basis of the monthly rental of Rs. 61-4-0, the figure arrived at being Rs. 601/ -.

( 4 ) THE question which arises for decision in this appeal is" whether the income, derived from the advertisement hoarding, was, or could be treated as, rent within the meaning of Section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, and could be taken into account in determining the annual value of the building. That is the only point which has been argued before us by the appellant Corporation and no other point needs consideration in this appeal.

( 5 ) A similar question arose recently in this Court in the case of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, 58 Cal W. N. 537 (A), in which the premises had been assessed on the basis of the ground rent as also, on the royalty, payable for an advertisement hoarding, and it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the advertisement hoarding not being a building, in ascertaining the annual value of the premises, the royalty received by the assessee from the advertisement should not have been taken into consideration. But the point was left undecided as the appellant succeeded on the other point, as to whether the premises had been rightly assessed under Section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923.

( 6 ) SECTION 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 is in these terms :"for the purpose of assessing land and building to the consolidated rate 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 assessme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document