CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA Vs. PADMA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which arise for my consideration on this reference under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent have not been formulated by the Division Court which heard the appeal; but on going through the dissentient judgments of the two differing Judges (Guha Ray and Sen JJ.) I understand that they differed on the following questions: 1. Whether in determining the annual, value of a building under Section 127 (a), Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 the Corporation of Calcutta is bound by the standard rent fixed by a Rent Controller under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

(2.) What is the meaning of the expression "at the time of the assessment" occurring in Section 127(a), Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923?

(3.) Whether in tin's particular case it can be said that a standard rent was in existence at the time of the assessment. 2. I am not very sure whether I have -any jurisdiction to frame questions under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent for the purpose of answering them; but at the same time I am not inclined to reject this reference on this technical ground when I have been able to understand the points CL difference on a perusal of the two judgments, more particularly in view of the fact that it is of the utmost importance to both the parties that the dispute between them should be finally settled as quickly as possible so far as this Court is concerned. 3. The facts which are relevant for the pur-noses of the case and which are undisputed may be briefly stated as follows: