KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. GOPI MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by judgment and order dated January 5th, 2018 allowing the appeal in part passed by the Learned 2nd Bench, Municipal Assessment Tribunal, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) in Municipal Assessment Appeal being M.A.A. No. 1825 of 2012 (Mr. Gopi Mali and Shila Mali-Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation), present petitioner has preferred this revisional application under Article 227 of the constitution of India on the ground that Learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal did not consider the cost price of the premises and the rise of rent. He ought to have considered the rise of cost of the price of the premises as well as the assessment of Annual Valuation which was fixed as first time and also the rise of reasonable rent of the premises, likely to be fetched during the period of the Assessment w.e.f. 2nd quarter 2008-09.

(2.) It is further contended by the petitioner that Learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal should have appreciated that the rate of rent fetched by the premises in question @ Rs.2.75 per sq.ft, per month which was taken into consideration to assess the annual valuation by the Hearing Officer should not have been modified. Most importantly, Learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal should not have relied upon the judgement of the Learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal, K.M.C., passed in M.A.A. No. 1819/2012, to modify the order of Hearing Officer because the said judgment has already been set aside by this Hon 'ble Court.

(3.) Further contention of the petitioner is that the Learned Municipal Tribunal acted improperly and wrongfully by not considering the Inspection Book copies referred to by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the appeal since the same were the basis of orders of Hearing Officer and cannot be replaced by the observation made by the Tribunal passed in M.A.A. No. 1819/2012 which has already been set aside. Lastly, Learned Municipal Tribunal failed to make any effort to ascertain the estimated market reasonable rental value of the flat for the purpose of determination of annual valuation of the premises in question and also committed gross violation of principles of natural justice, since the impugned order is not supported by proper reasoning.