JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows : Sen, J. : This appeal under section 183 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) arises out of a proceeding under the said Act for assessment of the annual value in respect of premises No. 138. Ram Dulal Sarkar St., Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the disputed premises) for imposition of consolidated rate for the period commencing from the second quarter of 1961-62 and is directed against the judgment and order dated the 24th of January, 1964 passed by the learned Judge Court of Small Causes, Calcutta in Municipal. Appeal No. 105 of 1963. By the aforesaid judgment and order the learned Judge set aside the annual value as assessed on revision by the appellant, Corporation of Calcutta and restored the existing annual value in respect of the disputed premises. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. In a proceeding under Section 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act of 1950) between the landlord respondent and his tenant, the standard rent in respect of the disputed premises was fixed at Rs.247.50 per month with effect from November, 1955 by the Rent Controller, Calcutta. The disputed premises, however, being requisitioned by the State of West Bengal under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Requisition Act of 1947), compensation payable under the said Act to the respondent was fixed at Rs.5.14.00 per month. In the proceeding for assessment of the annual value for imposition of the consolidated rate for the period commencing from the second quarter of 1955-56 the appellant assessed the annual value not on the basis of the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller, Calcutta, but on the basis of the monthly compensation of Rs.514.00 fixed under the provisions of the Requisition Act of 1947 and made payable to the respondent. The respondent objected to such an assessment and in an appeal under Section 183 (1) of the said Act, the respondent disputed the right of the appellant to assess the annual value on the basis of the monthly compensation so fixed when the standard rent in respect of the disputed premises had already been fixed at Rs.247.50 under the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950. Learned Judge,. Court of Small Causes, Calcutta allowed the said appeal by the respondent and fixed the annual value for the said period on the basis of the standard rent of Rs.247.50 by an order dated March 1, 1957 and overruled the appellant's claim then put forward to the effect that it could assess the annual value on the basis of the monthly compensation 'notwithstanding the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller. In the background of the aforesaid admitted facts in the next sexennial assessment for the period commencing from the second quarter of 1961-62 the appellant again assessed the annual value of the disputed premises on the basis of the monthly compensation of Rs.514.00 fixed under the provisions of the Requisition Act of 1947 and payable to the respondent by the State of West Bengal. The respondent again disputed the validity of such assessment and raised an objection that the standard rent in respect of the said premises having been fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1950 the annual value must be assessed on the basis of the standard rent so fixed and not on the basis of the monthly compensation as aforesaid. This objection having been overruled by the Special Officer. the respondent preferred an appeal under section 183 (1) of the said Act. The appeal was allowed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes. Calcutta who held that in view of the judgment and order dated March 1, 1957 in the previous municipal appeal, it is no longer open to the appellant to claim that it could still assess the annual value on the basis of monthly compensation and not on the basis of the standard rent fixed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act of 1950, inasmuch as such an issue must be deemed to be concluded as against the appellant on principles of res judicata. Learned Judge accordingly revised the annual value as assessed by the appellant and refixed the same on the basis of the standard rent with the result that the old annual value was restored. This decision of the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal now before us. 3. In support of this appeal, Mr. Ajay Kumar Basu, learned Advocate has first contended that the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta is in error in holding that the issue as to whether the appellant can assess the annual value on the basis of the monthly compensation as aforesaid is concluded by principles of res judicata when the period under assessment is wholly different from that in dispute in the earlier municipal appeal. On the merits Mr. Basu, learned Advocate has next contended that though the standard rent in respect of the disputed premises had been fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1950. Yet when the respondent is receiving a monthly compensation of Rs.514.00 and when the said amount represents the reasonable rent payable in respect of the disputed premises, the appellant is justified in ignoring the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller and in making the assessment on the basis of the monthly compensation. Mr. Basu relies on the provisions of Section 11 of the Requisition Act of 1947 and further contends that proviso to Section 168 (1) of the said Act cannot override the appellant's right to make the assessment on the basis of reasonable rent as represented by the monthly compensation fixed under the provisions of the Requisition Act of 1947. 4. The appeal is being contested by the-respondent appearing in person. 5. In our view, though the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes. Calcutta may not be entirely right in his conclusion that the material issue is concluded against the appellant on principles of res judicata as held by him, yet, his ultimate conclusion that the assessment could only be made on the basis of the standard rent fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1950 and not on the basis of the monthly compensation fixed under the provisions of the Requisition Act of 1947 must be upheld. 6. It is not disputed by the parties now before us that the assessment is to be made under section 168(1) of the said Act. 6. It is not disputed by the parties now before us that the assessment is to be made under section 168(1) of the said Act. Section 168(1) of the Act provides that for the purpose of assessment to the consolidated rate the annual value of the land or the building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or the building might at the time of assessment be reasonably expected to let subject to statutory allowance provided under the Act. But the proviso to that sub-section is of importance to us and it provides as follows : "provided that in respect of any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under section 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950, the annual value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of standard rent so fixed." According to Mr. Basu, when the monthly compensation realised by the assessee respondent from the State Government represents substantially the reasonable rent which the disputed premises is likely to fetch such amount can legitimately form the basis of assessment on the provisions of section 168(1) of the said Act. Mr. Basu contends if the reasonable rent is assessed under a different statute like the Requisition Act of 1947 and if the assessee goes on realising the amount so fixed, the proviso cannot override the provisions under section 168(1) of the Act. This is a contention which is difficult for us to accept. In our considered opinion the Legislature intended just the contrary in incorporating the proviso referred to hereinbefore under section 168(1) of the said Act. The proviso makes it clear that once there is a fixation of the standard rent under the Rent Control Act of 1950 rent so fixed will be the only basis of assessment of the annual value for imposition of consolidated rate under the provisions of the said Act. To that extent the mandatory provision of the proviso expressly overrides the main sub-section. The reason, in our opinion, is obvious. To that extent the mandatory provision of the proviso expressly overrides the main sub-section. The reason, in our opinion, is obvious. Once the standard rent is fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1950 such fixation attaches to the premises itself and the order of-fixation acquires the status of a judgment in rent no landlord can in law realise anything more than the amount so fixed by letting out the premises in view of the statutory bar imposed by the Act itself. On the provisions of section 168(1) read with the proviso, it must be held that once the standard rent of a premises is fixed under the Rent Control Act of 1950, rent so fixed alone can be considered to be the rent for which the premises might be reasonably expected to let for the assessment of the annual value irrespective of any other assessment under any other statute of any amount representing any reasonable rent or any assessment made on such a footing. Standard rent being the only rent which the landlord can in law realize. In the event of letting out the premises and not any other amount, such rent really represents the amount contemplated by section 168(1) of the said Act. 7. There is another difficulty in accepting the contention of Mr. Basu to the effect that the appellant is entitled to assess the annual value on the basis of the monthly compensation fixed under the provisions of the Requisition Act of 1947 which was being paid at the relevant time to the assessee respondent, such compensation does not represent rent payable in respect of the disputed premises on a voluntary act of letting. Amount so paid by way of compensation only compensates the owner for the enforced loss of possession and user of the property and other prejudices suffered as a consequence of such requisition and also prescribed by the Act itself. In Section 12 the Statute prescribes the different considerations which enter into determination of the compensations and all of them are not considerations relevant to the assessment of rent. In Section 12 the Statute prescribes the different considerations which enter into determination of the compensations and all of them are not considerations relevant to the assessment of rent. It is no doubt true that the relevant part of the proviso to Section 11 provides as follows : "Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in section 12(1) in the case of an entire premises which was constructed after the commencement of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) - (second Amendment) Act, 1963, the amount payable annually shall not exceed 6-3/4 per cent. of the sum total of the cost of construction of such premises and the market price of the land on the date of commencement of construction, together with one-half of the total amount of municipal rates and taxes payable annually in respect of such premises; (2) in other cases, the amount payable shall not exceed (i) where the premises were let out on rent for a continuous period of not less than six months immediately before being requisitioned, such rent by more than ten per cent., or (ii) where the premises' were not so let out, such rent as would be reasonable having regard to the situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein and where there are similar premises in the locality, having regard also to the rent payable in respect of such premises." . But though the admitted position is that the assessee is reatising Rs.514. 00 by way of monthly compensation for the disputed premises so requisitioned, yet there is no evidence before us to show the basis or the manner of determination of the compensation so being paid to the assessee respondent. The order fixing the compensation had not been disclosed by either of the parties now before us. Rent referred to in clause (i) of proviso (2) referred to hereinbefore need not necessarily be the standard-rent within the meaning of the Rent Control Act of 1950. Though there is no legal bar to the respondent assessee realising such rent by way of compensation for the requisition, he could not have lawfully realised the same by way of rent if it exceeds the amount of standard rent as specified in the Rent Control Act of 1950 in view of the statutory bar imposed by Section 3 of the Rent Control Act of 1950. So far as clause (ii) of the said proviso is concerned though it speaks of reasonable rent, the basis of determination of such rent is not the same as in the case of fixation of Standard rent under section 9 of the Rent Control Act of 1950 where the basic norm of fixation is related to the rent paid on 1st December, 1941 or probable rent so payable as on that date. Hence, the monthly compensation assessed under the Requisition Act of 1947 may not necessarily represent the rent lawfully payable by a tenant to the landlord under the provisions of Rent Control Act of 1950 on the premises being let out by a voluntary act between the parties. Hence, it is not the reasonable rent contemplated by section 168 (1) of the said Act read with the proviso. 8. For reasons aforesaid we overrule the only contention put forward by Mr. Basu, learned Advocate for the appellant in support of this appeal. In our view, the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, was right in assessing the annual value of the disputed premises on the basis of the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller ignoring the monthly compensation realised by the assessee on the requisition of the said premises when the appellant had not disputed the bona fides of the fixation of the standard rent by the Rent Controller. 9. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Roy, J. :- I agree.