JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is by the assessee against an order, passed by the learned judge, Fourth Bench, Court of Small causes, Calcutta, in the matter of municipal assessment of the disputed premises No. 2, Netaji Subhash Road. The departmental assessment was confirmed by the said learned Judge. The period in question is the general revaluation period, commencing with the 4th quarter of 1956-57, i. e. from the 1st of January, 1957, The departmental assessment was Rs. 1,05,375/- as the annual value. This was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner No. 2 of the corporation of Calcutta. Thereafter, the matter was taken on appeal, as provided by the statute, to the Court of small Causes, Calcutta, at the instance of the assessee. The learned Judge, however, dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the annual value of the premises in question at the same figure, namely, Rs. 1,05,375/ -. 2. THE assessee, feeling aggrieved, has come up to this Court. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal by Mr. Banerji, learned Advocate for the appellant. In the first place, Mr. Banerji has submitted that the above animal valrne, which was arrived at on the basis of rs. 8,870/ - as the monthly rent for the disputed premises also included the rent for the additional advantage of the appellant's special right of way over the private lands of its landlord under the governing lease, which is Ext. 1 in this case. In the second place, it was urged that the additional figure of rs. 870/-, included to the above rent of rs. 8,870/-, was an additional load, which ought not to have been imposed on the disputed premises, as the same, representing rent of the mezzanrne floor, had already been included in tie rental of the disputed premises at the figure of Rs. 8,000/- at the previous general revaluation. Mr. Banerji also drew our attention to the fact that, although, under the relevant statute, annual valuation is to be assessed on the hypothetical fair rent, in the instant case, that assessment was made on the actual rent, which was not permissible under the said statute. With regard to this last contention, it may at once be stated that, in the absence of any other material relevant on the point, the actual rent may well be a good index of the hypothetical fair rent. With regard to this last contention, it may at once be stated that, in the absence of any other material relevant on the point, the actual rent may well be a good index of the hypothetical fair rent. From that point of view, making of the instant assessment on the basis or in the light of actual rent cannot be objected to. 3. WITH regard to the second submission of Mr. Banerji, also, we are unable to accept it, as we find that, although the mezzanine floor in question was taken into consideration at the time of the previous revaluation, there are abundant materials on record, on the admitted position under the lease in question, having regard to the period, which is now under consideration and the period, which was under consideration on the previous occasion, that the rental of the disputed premises would be higher on the estimate of both the parties, as obtainable from the said lease. When the assessment was made on the previous occasion, the period, then under consideration, consisted partly of a period, during which the rental was Rs. 4,000 /- per month, and a further period, during which the rental was Rs. 8,000/ - per month, or, in other words, the average rental was in the neighbourhood of Rs. 6,000/- per month. So far as the period now under consideration is concerned, the rental under the lease would be for the entire period @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. There is thus on the estimate, made by the parties and accepted by them, an agreed rental of Rs. 8,000 /- for the present relevant period, or, in other words, there was, admittedly, an increase or enhancement of rent since the last valuation. Viewed in this light, the fixation of the rental at Rs. 8,870/- of the premises in question, including the mezzanine floor, would not be unfair or inconsistent with the previous assessment, provided the rental of the disputed premises be rs. 8,000/ - per month under the lease, excluding the mezzanine floor. The evidence, on record also sufficiently demonstrates that, for the mezzanine floor, the rental of Rs. 870/- per month would be fairly obtainable having regard to its nature and extent. In this view, we would reject the second submission of Mr. Banerji. 4. COMING now to Mr. Banerji's first submission, we feel that there is some substance in it. The evidence, on record also sufficiently demonstrates that, for the mezzanine floor, the rental of Rs. 870/- per month would be fairly obtainable having regard to its nature and extent. In this view, we would reject the second submission of Mr. Banerji. 4. COMING now to Mr. Banerji's first submission, we feel that there is some substance in it. It is true that, broadly speaking, under the lease in question, the rent of the disputed premises during the relevant period, now under consideration, would be Rs. 8,000/-, but it should not be overlooked that this rent includes also the additional advantage, obtained by the appellant under its said lease in the shape of a right of way over its landlord's private land. That private land or that right of way over it can hardly be considered to be a part of the disputed premises. There is no question in the instant case that, even without the said right of way, the disputed premises would be fully enjoyable. In the circumstances, the said right of way can only be classed as an additional advantage, obtained by the tenant-appellant on payment of a separate consideration in the shape of rental in respect of the same. It was not in the nature of any accessory licence, as held by the learned Small Cause Court judge. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the stipulated rental of rs. 8,000/- per month would include not only the rent of the disputed premises but also the monthly rent or monthly payment in respect of the said additional advantage in the shape of additional right of way. In assessing, therefore, the annual value of the disputed premises, the rent for that special advantage of right of way would have to be excluded from the stipulated rental of Rs. 8,000/- per month. On the present materials, it is not possible to find out what amount is to be deducted under the above head. For that purpose, further materials would be necessary and the matter would require further consideration. 8,000/- per month. On the present materials, it is not possible to find out what amount is to be deducted under the above head. For that purpose, further materials would be necessary and the matter would require further consideration. We would, accordingly, allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned order of the learned Small cause Court Judge and send the matter back to him so that the quantum of reduction for the above special advantage of additional right of way may be determined by him on the materials, now on record, and on such further materials as may be produced before him by the parties for establishing their respective cases on the point. After such determination, the learned Small Court Judge will arrive at the appropriate annual value of the disputed premises on the reduced rental which would follow as a necessary consequence. 5. THE appeal is allowed as above and the case is sent back to the court below for final disposal, in accordance wife law, in the light of the observations, made in this judgment, and the directions, given herein. There will be no order for costs in this Court. Let the further hearing be expedited as much as possible. Let the records go down as quickly as possible.