The Rent Controller has the authority to appoint a Commissioner to assess the valuation of a flat under Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, even if the parties fail to provide supporting material, and the assessment will be upheld unless the tenant can prove that the fair rent would have been much lesser if calculated under Section 17 of the Act.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner is a monthly tenant under the private respondents in respect of a flat measuring carpet area of 1050 sq. ft. more or less on the southern side of the 3rd floor of premises no. 9, Jeliapara First Bye Lane, Salkia, Howrah. Admittedly the petitioner was inducted in the said flat as a tenant thereof in the year 1988 at a monthly rental of Rs. 701/- excluding electric charges. Subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs. 848/- per month.

2. After the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came into operation, the private respondents (Landlords) submitted an application under Section 17 of the said Act before the Rent Controller seeking assessment of fair rent of the said flat.

3. Though the private respondents (landlords) claimed in their application that the value of the land over which the building was erected in the year 1988 was Rs. 400/- per sq. ft. and the actual cost of construction was Rs. 225/- per sq. ft. in the year 1988, but in course of trial of the said proceeding, no material could be produced by them to substantiate their contention before the Rent Controller.

4. The petitioner herein contested the said proceeding by filing objection denying the aforesaid contention of the private respondents, but he also could not produce any material either to disprove the contention of the Private respondents regarding the costs of construction of the flat in question or to prove his contention regarding the cost of construction of the flat in question in the year 1988.

5. Since neither party could produce any material before the Rent Controller to bring on record as to the actual cost of construction of the building in the year 1988 and/or the valuation of the land which the said building was constructed, in the year 1988, the Rent Controller ultimately appointed a Commissioner for assessment of the actual value of the land and/or cost of construction of the flat in question as of the year 1988.

6. The Commissioner submitted his report stating therein that since the flat in question is situated in a multistoried building, value of land and structure need not be considered separately for assessment of valuation of the flat in question. He opined that the valuation of the flat in a multistoried building can be calculated in the same manner as it is done in case of an ownership flat. He assessed Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. as the cost of construction of the said flat including the land value as of the year 1988 and calculated the valuation of the said flat at Rs. 3,62,400/- by applying Section 17(2) of the said Act to yield the petitioner's rent of Rs. 24,462/- per annum. Thus, he calculated the monthly rent of the said premises at Rs. 2038/- per month and in addition to the monthly rent, a sum of Rs. 507/- was held to be payable towards the monthly Municipal tax of the said flat. Thus, the fair rent, according to him, will be Rs. 2,545/- per month.

7. The petitioner herein submitted an objection challenging the correctness of such report. It is contended by the petitioner that the Commissioner's assessment is absolutely imaginary and illegal as a faulty procedure was adopted by him in assessing the market price of the land and cost of construction of the said flat as of the year 1988.

8. Since such an objection was raised by the petitioner, the Rent Controller by his order dated 7th December, 2010 directed the petitioner to submit the relevant documents pertaining to value of the land on which the building was constructed and/or the Public Works Department's Schedule of letting value of the identical flats in the said locality corresponding to the year of 1988.

9. Though the petitioner by his letter dated 13th September, 2011 requested the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Howrah Sub-Division to supply the above-mentioned documents, but those documents were claimed to be not supplied to the petitioner and as a result he failed to submit these documents before the Rent Controller.

10.