Judgment 1. THIS is an appeal against the decision of a Judge, Small Cause Court, Sealdah, dated the 30th November, 1954, in an appeal under section 141 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The premises in question is 9, Russa Road. The land in the said premises belongs to the Corporation of Calcutta. The respondent before us, Ashutosh Mukherjee Memorial Institute, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, obtained a lease of the said premises from the Corporation of Calcutta for 99 years formerly on a rent of one rupee but later on increased to Rs. 2/- per annum. The said respondent after taking a lease of the said premises constructed a pucca building on it. The area of the land in question is one bigha, 11 cottas, 13 Chhataks and 9 sq. ft. The said premises, that is, No. 9 Russa Road with the building and the land on which it was situate was assessed by the Corporation of calcutta. The said assessment was to take effect from October, 1950. The original valuation of the said premises fixed by the Corporation was reduced by the Special Officer to a total sum of Rs. 6,37,475/ -. In arriving at that valuation the land in the said premises was valued at Rs. 7,750/-per cotta and the building standing on it, after allowing an all round depreciation of 5 per cent, was valued at Rs. 3,09,832/ -. The annual valuation therefore being 5 p. c. of the said valuation, was Rs. 31,873/ -. Against the said decision of the Special Officer there was an appeal to the Small Cause Court, Sealdah, by the assessee, Ashutosh Mukherjee Memorial Institute. The learned Judge fixed the value of the buildings on the said premises at Rs. 3,82,743/ -. He arrived at the said valuation after allowing depreciation of 5 per cent in respect of that portion of the building which was constructed in 1943-44 and 8 per cent for the other parts of the building which were completed in 1934. As for the valuation of the land in the said premises the learned Judge held that the said land value should not be more than Rs. 40/ -. As for the valuation of the land in the said premises the learned Judge held that the said land value should not be more than Rs. 40/ -. He came to that valuation on the basis of the rent which is paid by the assessee to the Corporation in respect of the said land which the assessee has taken on lease from the said Corporation. Against that decision of the learned Judge the present appeal has been filed by the Corporation. 2. BEFORE as it was contended by the learned Advocate for the Corporation that the basis of the valuation of the land in question made by the learned Judge was entirely wrong. He contended that the learned Judge should have arrived at the valuation of the land not only by reference to the lessor's interest but also to the lessee's interest; in other words, his contention way that the Corporation is not concerned with the lessee's or the lessor's interest but it was concerned with the land and in arriving at the valuation of the land what has to be seen is the value which the said land if offered for sale in the market would fetch. On that basis the learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the valuation of the land in question should have been made on the basis of Rs. 7,750/- per cotta. On the question of the valuation of the buildings the only submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant before us was that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing depreciation of 8 per cent on the portion of the building which was completed in 1934. The learned Judge according to him, should have retained the all round depreciation of 5 per cent which was allowed by the Special Officer of the Corporation. 3. AS against the said contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. The learned Judge according to him, should have retained the all round depreciation of 5 per cent which was allowed by the Special Officer of the Corporation. 3. AS against the said contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the assessee, Ashutosh Mukherjee Memorial Institute, urged in the first place that in arriving at the valuation of the land under section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, the present value of the land to the owner only has to be taken into consideration: in other words, his contention was that the actual value of the land to the owner and not a fictitious value has to be taken into consideration in determining the value of the land under section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. It should be noted that the valuation in the present case was made under section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. 4. IN order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Advocates appearing before us as aforesaid it would be necessary to set out section 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923. The said section has two sub-clauses. Clause (a) of the said section reads as follows: "the annual value of land, and the annual value of any building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let, shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent." Clause (b) reads as follows: "the annual value of any building not erected for letting purposes and not ordinarily let shall be deemed to be five percent on the sum obtained by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building, less a reasonable amount to be deducted on account of depreciation (if any), to the estimated present value of the land valued with the building as part of the same premises." Mr. Gupta's contention before us was that the estimated present value of the land means the estimated present value of the land to the owner. Gupta's contention before us was that the estimated present value of the land means the estimated present value of the land to the owner. He contended that what has to be ascertained is the market value of the owner's interest in the said land. In support of that contention he referred us to the case of Province of Bengal v. The Corporation of Calcutta (1) 46 C.W.N. 496, decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The question which we have to decide in this appeal, in our opinion, is not covered by any decision of this Court. 5. THAT question is as to whether the words "the estimated present value of the land" as mentioned in clause (b) of section 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, means the present value to the owner or the value of the land including everybody's interest on it. If we hold that the said expression means only the value of the land to the owner, then the view taken by the learned Judge would be to some extent justified, because, in that case the value of the said land to the owner would be limited only to the sum of rent payable by the lessee of the said land together with the value of the reversionary interest on the said land. If, on the other hand, we accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the Corporation, namely, that in arriving at the valuation of the land under clause (b) of section 127 of the Act the interests of all parties concerned in the land have to be taken into consideration including the lessee's interest, then the said decision of the learned Judge cannot be sustained. 6. AS I have said before, the matter is not covered by any decision of this court but has to be decided on first impression, I am of opinion, the contention of the learned Advocate for the Corporation should be accepted as sound. The Corporation of Calcutta is not concerned with the ownership of the land in question in arriving at the valuation of the said land for the purpose of rating; nor is it concerned with the question as to who is the lessor or who is the lessee in respect of the said land or what the value of the interest of the lessor or of the lessee in the said land is. The Corporation, as section 124 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, shows, may impose a consolidated, rate upon all lands and buildings in Calcutta for the purpose of this Act. The Corporation is thus concerned with lands and buildings and will proceed to value the same for the purpose of determining the consolidated rate payable in respect thereof. Clause (b) of sec. 127 of the Act does not say that in determining the valuation to be made under that clause any particular interest either that of the owner or that of the lessee should be taken into consideration. All that it lays down is that the annual value of any building not erected for letting purposes and not ordinarily let shall be deemed to be 5 p. c. of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present cost of creating the building less a reasonable sum on account of depreciation to the "estimated present value of the land valued with the building as part of the same premises." Clause (a) of the said section which lays down the mode of ascertaining the annual value of land and building created for letting purposes also makes no reference to the ownership of the premises in question. It, therefore, seems to me that the Corporation of Calcutta is concerned with the valuation of the land and/or building as such, which means interest of all parties concerned therein and not any particular interest either of the lessor or of the lessee. The decision in the case of Province of Bengal v. The Corporation of Calcutta (1) reported in 46 C. W. N. 496 on which Mr. Gupta relied in my opinion does not lay down any proposition that in determining "the present estimated value of the land" under clause (b) of sec. 127 it is only the value of the land to the owner which has to be ascertained. The question which is now before us did not arise for their Lordships' consideration in that case. What was laid down therein was that the word "value" in section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, means the selling price, that is, such price between a willing seller and a willing purchaser of the property in question subject to the advantages or disadvantages involved in the present condition. What was laid down therein was that the word "value" in section 127 (b) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, means the selling price, that is, such price between a willing seller and a willing purchaser of the property in question subject to the advantages or disadvantages involved in the present condition. The question whether, if there is a lease, that price would be 'the price of the land to the owner lessor or the price to the lessee or to both' is not covered by their Lordships' decision in that case. This case in my opinion does not touch the present question. Mr. Gupta in course of his argument on this point contended before us that the expression 'land' by itself means nothing. The real connotation of that expression is 'the bundle of rights which are possessed in respect thereof. ' With this statement of law I agree, but then in my opinion it is not merely the bundle of rights which the lessor has in the property in question but which the lessee possesses will also have to be taken into consideration. The expression 'land' in my opinion would include all rights including the lessor's rights and the lessee's rights in respect thereof. In my opinion, the contention of Mr. Gupta if accepted would lead to curious results. If, for instance, the land in question is subject to a mortgage, can it be said that the Corporation will have to take that fact into consideration and determine only the value of mortgagor's interest in the land. In other words can it be said that what the Corporation has to determine is only the value of the right of redemption which the mortgagor has in the said land? The Corporation in my opinion is not concerned with the respective rights of the mortgagor or of the mortgagee but will proceed to value the full interest in the said land by determining what price it would bring if sold in the open market. In my opinion, the proposition which Mr. Gupta urged before us cannot be accepted as sound. 7. MR. In my opinion, the proposition which Mr. Gupta urged before us cannot be accepted as sound. 7. MR. Gupta then contended before us that even if we do not accept his argument on this point, namely, that the basis of the land in question must be the value of the land to the owner in the said land, the rate the basis of which the Special Officer arrived at the valuation of the land in question namely, Rs.7,750/- per cottah cannot be sustained. He referred us to the observations of the learned Judge made in his judgment wherein he pointed out that the adjoining premises being premises No. 22/1a, Russa Road premises No. 30, Russa Road and No. 117, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road have been valued at the rate of Rs5,200/-, Rs.6,600/- and Rs.6000/per cotta respectively. The learned Judge has also observed that any other premises in similar situation and of similar area as the premises in question would not have the lesser land value than Rs.5,000/- per cotta. But the learned Judge on the view that the valuation should be made on the basis of the lessor's interest has arrived at the total value of Rs.40/- of the said land. In my opinion, there were materials before the learned Judge on which it was possible to hold that the rate of valuation of the land in question, that is to say, Rs.7,750/- per cotta is not the correct rate of valuation. It is in evidence that the adjoining premises were valued at a rate lesser than Rs.7,750/- per cottah. Some have been valued at Rs.5,200/-and others have been valued at Rs.6,600/- and 6,000/- per cottah respectively. In the circumstances. I am of opinion that it would be proper to value the land in question at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cotta. It should be remembered that the land in question consists of a very large area and on which there is a big building erected by the respondent. The land and the building must necessarily have only a limited buyer and taking all these facts into consideration. I hold that the rate on which valuation should be made should be reduced to Rs.5,000/- per cotta and the land should be valued on that basis. 8. ON the question of depreciation. I see no reason to upset the decision of the learned Judge on this point. I hold that the rate on which valuation should be made should be reduced to Rs.5,000/- per cotta and the land should be valued on that basis. 8. ON the question of depreciation. I see no reason to upset the decision of the learned Judge on this point. It is not denied that a portion of the building was constructed in 1943-44 and the other portions were completed in 1934. The learned Judge has allowed a depreciation of 5 per cent on the portions which were more recently constructed and allowed 8 percent depreciation on the portion which was completed in 1934. I find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Judge. In the result, therefore, the finding of the learned Judge on the question of valuation of the land should be set aside. The said land should be valued at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cotta. On that basis the value of the land would come to Rs.1,59,124/-, and the value of the building as valued by the learned Judge and which valuation I accept comes to Rs.3,82,703/-. The total, therefore, comes to Rs.5,41,827/-. The annual value, therefore, of the said premises would be Rs.27,09/-. We set aside the valuation of the said premises as made by the learned Judge and we order that the said premises be valued at the total sum of Rs.5,41,827/-. Before concluding my judgment. I should mention that Mr. Gupta wanted to urge before us that the land in question being the land belonging to the Corporation it cannot form the subject-matter of any assessment. He contended that there is nothing in the Calcutta Municipal Act which empowers the Corporation to assess merely the lessee's interest. Therefore, he urged that the interests of the lessor, that is the Corporation and that of the lessee, the respondent have both to be assessed, but the lessor in this case being the Corporation it is not liable to assessment. The result of Mr. Gupta's contention on this point would be that there cannot be any assessment at all of the premises in question. It would be noted that this contention although raised in the lower court' as appearing from the grounds of appeal to the said court was not pressed before it and Mr. The result of Mr. Gupta's contention on this point would be that there cannot be any assessment at all of the premises in question. It would be noted that this contention although raised in the lower court' as appearing from the grounds of appeal to the said court was not pressed before it and Mr. Gupta conceded that that was so nor has any appeal been preferred to this Court by the respondent against the said decision of the learned Judge. In these circumstances this point cannot now be raised by Mr. Gupta on behalf of his client. It may be that in a future assessment the present respondent would raise this contention and if raised the matter may have to be decided in the said proceeding. In the present appeal this point cannot be raised by Mr. Gupta. 9. THE result, therefore, is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed in terms of this judgment. In the circumstances of this case each party will pay and bear its own costs of this appeal.