The second proviso to Section 174 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which provides that no reduction in gross annual rent shall be made where the total covered area in any land or building under occupation for residential purpose by the owner exceeds 150 square meters, applies to the facts of this case.

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against order dated 13th May, 2008 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata in M.A.A (Municipal Assessment Appeal) No. 34 of 2006. By the order impugned the Assessment Tribunal has reduced the valuation of the property as assessed by the Hearing Officer and being aggrieved thereby the petitioner Kolkata Municipal Corporation has filed this revisional application before this Court. The Opposite Party Sri Rathindra Nath De Sarkar is the owner of Premises No. 25A, Baishnabghata Road, Kolkata-700 047 under Ward No. 100 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) and is an assessee in respect of the said premises under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation having Assessee No. 21-100-03-0071-1. In terms of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Hearing Officer-1 by his order dated 1st December, 2005 determined the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand) only, with effect from 1st quarter 2003-2004.

2. Being aggrieved by the said fixation of annual valuation, the Opposite Party herein preferred a statutory appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata which was registered as M.A.A. No. 34 of 2006. Municipal Assessment Tribunal by its order dated 13th May, 2005 allowed the appeal of the opposite party by reducing the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs.18,060/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Sixty) only, on contest.

3. In filing this revisional application there has been a delay and for which the petitioner made a composite prayer for condonation of such delay in Paragraph 5 of the revisional application the petitioner has stated the reasons for such delay and has submitted that for the ends of justice such delay should be condoned. Revisional application was admitted by this Court long ago.

4. From the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal it appears that the premises is a two-storied building with an additional room on the 2nd floor. Covered area in the ground floor is 1212 square feet whereas the area of the room on the 2nd floor is 150 square feet. The learned Appellate Tribunal has recorded that the appellant in his evidence submitted that during 4th quarter 2000-2001 there was a tenant in the ground floor at a rental of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) only, per month and annual valuation of the premises was fixed at Rs.25,060/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Sixty) only, with effect from 4th quarter 2000-2001. Tribunal came to a finding that the letting value of the premises during 4th quarter 2000-2001 was considered by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation at Rs.2,320/- (Rupees Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty) only, per month. The said amount was fixed for the entire premises including rented portion and owner’s occupied portion. Opposite party has stated that the said tenant who used to pay a rent of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only, per month vacated his tenancy and this fact had also been intimated by the appellant/Opposite Party to the petitioner KMC submitting A-75 form. So, according to the opposite party, it was an undisputed fact that during 1st quarter 2003-2004 that is the period during which the appeal was pending the entire premises, that is, ground floor, 1st floor and room on the 2nd floor came under the occupation of the owner and the owner used the premises for residential purposes. It was argued by the appellant/Opposite Party that annual valuation whatsoever had been fixed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation during 4th quarter 1994-1995 for the selfsame premises when there was tenant but when the premises was entirely occupied by the owner, it should be revised for the present period of appeal, that is, the 1st quarter of 2003-2004. It has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that appellant/Opposite Party submitted Xerox Copy of the Rate Card wherefrom it appear