The annual valuation of a property must be determined in accordance with the guidelines set out in Section 174(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Kanchan Chakraborty, J.

1) The challenge in this revision application is to the judgement and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata in M.A.A. no. 2285 of 2001 determining the Annual Valuation in respect of the premises no. 473/1 Lake Gardens Kolkata at Rs.1,02,960/- w.e.f. January/2000-01 thereby allowing the appeal and modifying order dated 25.7.2001 passed by the Hearing Officer, KMC determining the Annual Valuation at Rs.1,71,070/-.

2) The opposite party Monojit Saha being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2001 of the Hearing Officer determining the Annual Valuation at Rs.1,71,070/-, preferred an appeal before the Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal. The appeal was registered as M.A.A. 2285 of 2001. By judgment dated 14.10.2003 the Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata allowed the appeal and fixed the Annual Valuation of the said premises for the aforesaid period at Rs. 93312/-.

3) Being dissatisfied with the said determination by the Ld. Trinunal, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (the petitioner herein) preferred a revisional application being no. C.O. 861 of 2004 in this Court. By order dated 2.3.2005 in C.O. no. 86 of 2004, the said order passed in the appeal was set aside. This Court remitted the matter to the Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata to assess the valuation afresh after taking into consideration of all the facts which were required to be taken in terms of the procedure laid down in Section 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1986. This Court also directed the Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata to give opportunity of hearing of both the parties and adduce further evidence, if so required and considered the materials already on record afresh. The Ld. Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata, on receiving the order of this Court, heard the matter afresh and passed the order the order impugned dated 8.9.2005 whereby determined the Annual Valuation of the property at Rs. 102960/-.

4) The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Authority decided to challenge the impugned order and filed this revision application on the following grounds:-

a) that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from serious illegality and irregularity;

b) that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence already on record as directed by this Court ;

c) that the Tribunal failed to consider the other charges together with rent at the time of determining the Annual Valuation;

d) that the Tribunal did not consider all the factors of Section 174 of the Act and most arbitrarily fixed the rental valuation at Rs. 5000/- per occasion without any basis.

5) The point sought to be considered in this revision application is whether the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal Kolkata, suffers from incorrectness, irregularity and impropriety.

6) Mr. Ashoke Das Adhikari, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner Kolkata Municipal Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal jumped into the conclusion by fixing the rental valuation of the property at Rs. 5000/- per occasion without any basis. He contended that while the Tribunal came to a findings that the monthly rental value of the premises for commercial and residential can not exceed more than 7000/- per month and while there is no dispute about a rate of rent at per month for the residential portion, the rental valuation of the commercial portion per month ought to have been fixed at Rs. 5500/-per occasion. Mr. Das Adhikari also contended that the other charges which are usually received by the owner of the premises at the time of letting out for the purpose of ceremonies, have not been considered by the Tribunal while calculating the rental valuation of the premises. Finally, he submitted that the Tribunal failed to comply with the directions of this Court in latter and spirit.

7) Mr. Shankar Nath Dhar, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the opposite party contended