JUDGMENT 1. Premises No. 1, Ronaldshay Road, with out-houses and compound measuring an area of 3 bighas and 7 cottas of land is in the suburbs of Calcutta. The premises in question is within the Municipality of Calcutta. Before 1931, it belonged to a private person and the Allahabad Bank was a lessee of that house. At the time when the Allahabad Bank was a lessee, its General Manager used to reside in it. In 1931 the Allahabad Bank became by purchase the owner of the said premises. It is occupied by the General Manager, Lothian Brown. At the general re-valuation of 1944-1945 the Corporation of Calcutta assessed the premises under cl. (b) of S. 127, Calcutta Municipal Act. The assessment so made was to have come into force in January 1945. The assessee was the Allahabad Bank Ltd. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, under S. 141, Calcutta Municipal Act. The learned Judge held that Brown, the General Manager of the Allahabad Bank Ltd., was a tenant of the Bank in respect of the premises and so the assessment ought to have been made under cl. (a) of S. 127. The Corporation of Calcutta has preferred this appeal. During the course of the trial, the Allahahad Bank was ordered by the Court to produce records relating to the terms of the appointment of General Manager Brown and the terms under which the premises was allotted for his residence, be it by a resolution of the Board of Directors or otherwise, which it has in its possession by 29th April 1946. This order was made on 18th April 1946. On 29th April 1946, the Bank filed an application praying for a week's time to enable it to file the papers called for. Time was given as prayed for. But on the next date for hearing, viz., on 6th of May 1946, it produced resolutions appointing other persons as General Managers who had preceded Brown. But no resolution was put in by which Brown was appointed as General Manager. It put in a resolution of 1943 which only showed that Brown's salary was increased to Rs. 4000. No explanation has been offered why the papers called for which related to the appointment of Brown as General Manager have not been produced. But no resolution was put in by which Brown was appointed as General Manager. It put in a resolution of 1943 which only showed that Brown's salary was increased to Rs. 4000. No explanation has been offered why the papers called for which related to the appointment of Brown as General Manager have not been produced. Having regard to the fact that earlier resolutions relating to the appointment of other general managers preceding Mr. Brown and of other officers had been produced, we can only make this comment that if those papers had been produced they would have gone against the case of the Bank. With this background in view, we must discuss the oral evidence that has been produced on behalf of the Bank. 2. The General Manager, Brown did not come to depose before the Court but another officer of the Bank was examined. His name is A.B. Adam. The other witness produced by the Bank is one M.A. Mackland but he is not connected with the Bank. He is an officer of S.K. Sawday & Co. which was in charge of this case on behalf of the Bank. We propose to quote the material portion of the evidence given by Adam. He says that the premises in question are used purely as a residence of the General Manager. The General Manager does not carry Bank papers to that house. He does not carry on his duties at that house, so far as the witness knows. Then follow the sentences: The Bank allows him to occupy that house, as a perquisite of his post as General Manager, as our up-country managers also get such perquisites. There are no rules or regulations compelling the General Manager to occupy that house. He can occupy any other house in any other suitable locality in Calcutta. He can sublet the house to any other person if he likes; in that case the Bank would claim the rent and the Bank would provide the manager with another house on a rent-free basis. It further appears from the evidence that Brown has not to pay anything for his occupation of the house and no amount is deducted from his salary for occupying the said house. This witness admits that the Bank has allowed Brown to occupy that house without getting anything in return. It further appears from the evidence that Brown has not to pay anything for his occupation of the house and no amount is deducted from his salary for occupying the said house. This witness admits that the Bank has allowed Brown to occupy that house without getting anything in return. He no doubt says that it is a perquisite of his post as General Manager, as such privilege to get rent-free accommodation is a perquisite of every up-country Manager of the Bank. On this state of the evidence the inference that we draw is that the occupation of the house by Brown without any obligation to pay anything to the Bank is a privilege which has been conferred by the Bank on the General Manager Brown. Having regard to the fact that important papers relating to the appointment of Brown which would have shown the conditions of his service have been intentionally withheld by the Bank and having regard to some of the statements made by Adam in his evidence, the inference that we draw is that Brown because he is the General Manager has been allowed by the Bank to occupy the house as a licensee as long as he will be the General Manager. He is not a tenant at all. 3. Two cases have been cited before us by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. The first is the case of the AIR 1944 42 (Privy Council) . In that case the Commissioner of Presidency Division was allowed to occupy a house in Theatre Road by the Government which belonged to it. Ten per cent of his salary used to be deducted from his-pay and credited by the Government under the heading of "rent." That house was assessed by the Corporation of Calcutta under S. 127(b) , Calcutta Municipal Act. The Province of Bengal filed an appeal under S. 141 of the Act in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court held that the Commissioner was a tenant inasmuch as the moneys deducted from his salary were credited in Government papers as rent. The Corporation of Calcutta preferred an appeal. It was held that the mere fact that the Government had chosen to show the deductions as rent was not sufficient. The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court held that the Commissioner was a tenant inasmuch as the moneys deducted from his salary were credited in Government papers as rent. The Corporation of Calcutta preferred an appeal. It was held that the mere fact that the Government had chosen to show the deductions as rent was not sufficient. The man could still be regarded as being in occupation as a servant even if deductions from his pay were made by the Government under the heading of "rent". Some of the cases were reviewed and Small Cause Court Judge was directed to take additional evidence bearing upon the three points noticed in the judgment, viz., (1) whether the Commissioner of the Presidency Division is required to occupy the house in question for the performance of his services, or (2) did he occupy it in order to their performance or (3) that it was conducive to that purpose more than any other house which he might have himself rented. The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes took additional evidence and came to the conclusion that the Commissioner's occupation must be regarded to be the occupation of a servant. On the facts the Chief Judge was reversed by this Court and it was held by this Court that the Commissioner's occupation must be regarded to be an occupation by a tenant. Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Province of Bengal, AIR 1941 Cal 60 . The findings arrived at by this Court have been summarised in the first part of the judgment of the AIR 1944 42 (Privy Council) . The findings were that the Commissioner held the house on the terms of the general rules applicable to all Government servants and those rules did not compell him to occupy the house but did make him responsible for the rent leaving him free to sub-let by permission of the Government. It was further held that having regard to these findings and the fact that the Commissioner had given evidence that he could perform his duties equally well though residing in another house, a finding in the affirmative under heads (2) and (3) was not justified. It is on the basis of these findings which were examined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and approved, that the decision of this Court in that case was affirmed by the Judicial Committee. 4. It is on the basis of these findings which were examined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and approved, that the decision of this Court in that case was affirmed by the Judicial Committee. 4. The other decision is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in Governor-General of India in Council Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1948 Cal 8 . That case related to the assessment of 42 houses built by the Government at Dum Dum. The facts are reviewed in detail in the judgment and they are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case. 5. In our view, if the facts are clear and establish that the person is in occupation as a servant or as a licensee or if the facts are clear for the purpose of establishing that the person in occupation is a tenant, no further question arises. It is really in cases on the border line that the principles laid down by this Court and by the Judicial Committee in the Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Province of Bengal, AIR 1941 Cal 60 and AIR 1944 42 (Privy Council) or in the case of the Governor-General of India in Council Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1948 Cal 8 that the principles formulated in those cases which would guide. In this case, we hold that the facts are clear and they establish a license given by the Bank to Brown, the General Manager, to occupy the house as long as he continues to be its General Manager. On the facts, this case is somewhat similar to the case which was decided by this Court in F.M.A. No. 294 of 1940 (The National Bank of India v. The Corporation of Calcutta) decided on 17-4-42. 6. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The assessment made by the Corporation of Calcutta under S. 127(b) is affirmed. The appellant must get the costs of this appeal as also the costs of the lower Court from the Allahabad Bank.