LAWS(CAL)-1988-5-9

ADITYA NARAIN ROY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Decided On May 20, 1988
ADITYA NARAIN ROY Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the valuation of the Valuation Officer, Unit III, made under Section 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the immovable property being premises No. 129, Park Street, Calcutta, for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1984-85.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are that, in the year 1955, the premises at No. 129, Park Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the "said premises"), was let out on lease for a period of 25 years to one Mr. P. A. Basil, since deceased, at a rent of Rs. 100 per month. The said Mr. Basil, since deceased, and/or his legal heirs did not vacate the said premises on the expiry of the lease. The petitioners filed a suit in the year 1980 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for recovery of possession of the said premises. During the pendency of the said suit, Messrs. Susam Properties Pvt. Ltd. agreed to take the said premises on lease for a period of 75 years. By a deed of lease dated August 31, 1981, the petitioners granted lease of the said premises to Messrs. Susam Properties Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 75 years with an option for the lessee to renew the said lease for a period of another 20 years. The said deed of lease provides for rent of Rs. 2,000 per month during the period from May 1, 1981, to April 30, 1984, and Rs. 6,000 per month from May 1, 1984, to April 30, 2056. The said lease deed further provides that the lessee shall construct a building on the premises and thereafter allot vacant possession of a flat to the petitioners on the first floor of the said premises proposed to be constructed covering an area of 2,000 square feet.

(3.) In accordance with the terms and conditions of the said deed of lease, the said Susam Properties Pvt. Ltd. demolished the existing structure and has started construction of a new building thereat. According to the petitioner, superstructure of the said building has not been completed even in 1987 when the application was made or thereafter.