PUSHPALATA MONDAL Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated February 8, 1966, passed by Shri P.E. Banerjee, Judge, Second Bench of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta, in Municipal Appeal No. 149 of 1965 rejecting the claim of the Appellant.

(2.) The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:

(3.) Mr Himangsu Kumar Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the learned Judge ought to have held on evidence that the monthly rent was Rs. 231 and not Rs. 455. He draws our attention to the evidence of A.W. 1, Sunil Kumar Mondal, examined on behalf of the Appellant. This witness states that there are three tenants in the disputed premises. Monthly rent realised is Rs. 231. Counterpart has been proved, which, is Ex -1. He further states that Munni Devi, one of the tenants, has sublet her portion. The Respondent examined one Sachindra Kumar Some, Assessing Inspector of Calcutta Corporation. He inspected, the premises and noted the names of the tenants and the rents paid by them. It is his evidence that Rs. 682 were being realised from the tenants. But in cross -examination he admits that the names of the sub -tenants under Murihi Devi have been included in the inspection report. Direct tenant under the landlord were three. This admission fully supports the evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant that the tenants under the landlord only were three. That being so, it is contended by Mr. Basu that the Special Officer and the learned Judge ought to have considered that the rent realised by the landlord was only Rs. 231 per month and that being so, the assessment was wrongly made taking Rs. 455 as monthly rent.