Court rules that valuation assessments must reflect actual rental expectations and conditions, affirming Tribunal's authority to adjust arbitrary figures while emphasizing tenant agreements.

1. The instant revisional application is directed against the combined judgment and order dated June 29, 2016 passed by the 1st Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata, West Bengal in M.A.A. No. 129 of 2007 and M.A.A. No. 1775 of 2014.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal modified the order of assessment passed by the Hearing Officer and fixed the annual valuation of the suit premises for 4th quarter of 2005-2006 as well as for 1st quarter of 2007-2008 at the stipulated rates indicated in the impugned judgment and order.

3. The petitioner is the recorded owner and the person liable to pay municipal taxes for the municipal premises 1, 12, Durgapore Lane, Kolkata - 700027 under ward No. 74. The said premise is a two - storied building and during the period of assessment, it was partly occupied by the petitioner and part of it was occupied by residential tenants.

4. There was an assessment of the demised premises with annual valuation at ? 39, 530/- for the 4th quarter of 2005-2006, by the municipal corporation. On the basis of such proposed assessment, a notice inviting objections under S.184(3) was served upon the petitioner / assessee. In pursuance of such notice, the petitioner appeared before the Hearing Officer IX and filed his objection. Upon consideration of such objection, the Hearing Officer, by an order dated November 28, 2006, assessed the annual valuation of the suit premise at ? 39, 530/- for the 4th quarter of 2005-2006 in terms of S.188(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1980").

5. It was contended that the petitioner had submitted returns for the purpose of assessment but the return disclosing the rate of rent payable by the erstwhile tenant was not considered by the Hearing Officer. The tenants were re - inducted in the building after construction of a two - storied building. Such fact was not considered by the Hearing Officer.

6. On the same date i.e. November 28, 2006 the Hearing Officer also assessed and fixed annual valuation of the demised premises at Rs. 4, 000/- with effect from 1st quarter of 2001 - 2002. The Hearing Officer did not consider that the earlier tiled shed structure was demolished and the petitioner constructed a new two - storied building. The tenants were being inducted at the earlier rate of rent. The Hearing Officer also did not consider that the tenant who was occupying the entire first floor had filed a title suit against the petitioner. The actual rate of rent was not taken into consideration at the time of hearing. Being aggrieved of such determination of rent, the petitioner preferred an appeal being M.A.A. No. 129 of 2007.

7. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal being M.A.A. No. 129 of 2007, the respondent corporation again increased the annual valuation with effect from 1st quarter of 2007 - 2008. The petitioner preferred an objection against such assessment. The objection of the petitioner was disposed of by the Hearing Officer by his order dated July 15, 2014 fixing the annual valuation of the demised premises at Rs. 41, 100/- with effect from 1st quarter of 2007 - 2008. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred another appeal being M.A.A. No. 1775 of 2014 before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in terms of S.189 (6) of the Act of 1980.

8. The two appeals were heard together before the learned Tribunal. The Assessment Inspector attached to Ward No. 74 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation as well as the representatives of the petitioner deposed in such proceeding which disclosed that the petitioner was en