SALVATION ARMY Vs. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) Assailing the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 1147 of 2005, this appeal has been preferred. The impugned order reads such:

(3.) Assailing the. annual valuation for the quarter commencing from 4th quarter of the financial year 2001-02, the writ application was moved alleging inter alia the breach of principle of natural justice on the foundational fact that in the notice as served asking to file any objection with reference to such annual valuation as was fixed as Rs. 6,78,830/- ground for annual valuation only was taken as increase in estimated annual rent on account of redevelopment, addition alteration or improvement which was mentioned in the reverse page of the notice under ground for revision in the annual value assessed, but annual valuation was fixed taking note of change of nature of use by considering the use of one portion of the premises as nursing home by the tenant. It is the contention of the writ Petitioner/Appellant that the nursing home was already existing at the stage when annual valuation was made prior to the present annual valuation and this issue of change in use was considered at that time. However from the writ application, opposition and reply and from the records of the Hearing Officer, it appears that in the notice there was no ground mentioned about the reason for such proposed annual valuation namely on ground of "change of nature of use", but in the objection as filed by the Petitioner/Appellant before us, a categorical contention made about the unauthorised occupation of south-eastern block by one Mr. N.K. Chatterjee and at the time of hearing the writ Petitioner/ Appellant submitted the documents of eviction suit which was in the appeal stage at the material time. The documents relating to title appeal No. 61 of 1992 was filed. Copy of Memorandum of title appeal has been produced before us. From the grounds as taken in the said title appeal being ground No. II, IV, XII, XX, XXX, XXXIV and XL. It appears that facts of illegal construction by the tenant as well as the use of premises as nursing home were taken categorically in the grounds for eviction of the concerned tenant. Those grounds are set out hereinbelow: