JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The appellants are admittedly owners of the Holding No. 2A, Indra Biswas Road. The Corporation of Calcutta sued them for recovery of Rs. 1,503.91P. as the arrear consolidated rates in owners' share in respect of Premises No.4, Indra Biswas Road for the periods mentioned hereinafter and also for interest payable upon the said amount. The learned Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah dismissed the said suit. The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, has allowed the appeal of the Corporation of Calcutta and has decreed the suit in preliminary form. Hence, this second appeal at the instance of the defendant-owners. 2. The Corporation of Calcutta had claimed recovery of the said owners' share of the rates from 3rd quarter, 1955-56 to 2nd quarter, 1957-58 at the rate of Rs. 3745P. per quarter. The Corporation of Calcutta further claimed recovery of owners' share for the 4th quarter, 1957-58 at the rate of Rs. 51.19P. per quarter up to the 4th quarter, 1962-63. The Corporation also claimed that owners' share at the rate of Rs. 56.19P. was due for 3rd quarter, 1965-66 and also owners' share at the rate of Rs. 62.44P. from the 4th quarter, 1965-66 to the 2nd quarter, 1969-70 together with interest. The total amount payable for the aforesaid periods was alleged to be Rs. 3,051/- after deducting Rs. 1,533.91P. paid by a cheque by the owners. The Corporation prayed for recovery of the balance amount and for creating a charge for the same upon the holding in question. 3. In my view, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly overruled the contention of the defendant-appellants that the aforesaid increase in the consolidated rates were invalid and that the amounts claimed were irrecoverable. The defendant-appellants impugned that the said periodical revisions of the consolidated rates payable in respect of the suit premises on the ground that notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were not served upon them. Section 184 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 lays down that every valuation under section 172 of the said Act, shall subject to the provisions of sections 181, 182 and 183 be final. There is no evidence that the owners of the premises had filed objections under section 181 of the Calcutta Municipal Act against the aforesaid periodical increases made in the valuation of the suit holding. There is no evidence that the owners of the premises had filed objections under section 181 of the Calcutta Municipal Act against the aforesaid periodical increases made in the valuation of the suit holding. They did not appeal to the Court of Small Causes under section 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act. 1951. The burden of proof was upon the defendants to prove that the Assessor, Corporation of Calcutta, never gave them any special notice under section 181 of the said Act after increasing the valuation of the holding. According to the averments made in the plaint, the valuation of the holding was revised at least on four different occasions. 4. There was not even sufficient averment in the written statement filed by the appellants as to whether notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were served in respect of all the aforesaid four revisit ns or the said notice was not given in respect of some of the said revisions. Under sub-section (1) of section 190 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, the assessment calculated on the valuation for the time being shown in the assessment book shall be deemed to be the amount payable during the whole period for which the valuation is in force. Further, there is a statutory presumption of correctness and due compliance with the formalities in respect of such valuation and assessment made by the Corporation of Calcutta. The learned Munsif did not even frame any issue on the question whether or not the said revisions of consolidated rates claimed by the Corporation of Calcutta had been illegally made. In order to corroborate their oral evidence about non-service of such notices, the defendants made no attempt to produce any documentary evidence and did not also call upon the Corporation of Calcutta to disclose necessary documents, relating to alteration of the consolidated rates payable for the disputed holdings. 5. The Division Bench in their unreported judgment dated 5th February, 1969 in (1) Sushil Chandra Dutta & Ors. v. Corporation of Calcutta, Appeal from Original Order No. 466 of 1967, made observations about the effect of non-service of special notice under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1981 in an appeal by the assessee against the decision of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah dismissing his appeal under section 133(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. v. Corporation of Calcutta, Appeal from Original Order No. 466 of 1967, made observations about the effect of non-service of special notice under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1981 in an appeal by the assessee against the decision of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah dismissing his appeal under section 133(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The Division Bench had reversed the finding of the Small Causes Court Judge that such a notice under section 180 was served and held that there was no evidence of service of any notice on the occupier under section 180 of the said Act and that according to the Division Bench, the impugned assessment was illegal because such a notice was compulsory under the statute. By adducing cogent evidence the defendant-appellants in the said suit, did not prove that notices under section 180 of the Calcutta Municipal Act were not served on four occasions when the valuation and assessment of their holding were revised. 6. The learned Additional District Judge on facts also found that the 'A' Schedule property had been previously leased out by the defendant owners to ESSO & Co. and the rate bills used to represented to that Company at their Church Lane address and there was no evidence that after the said lessee, the company, had vacated the suit holding, the defendants who were the owners had never informed the Corporation of Calcutta that the rate bills should be henceforth sent to their residence at 4, Indra Biswas Road and not to the office of ESSO & Co., who were previously their lessee. The lower Appellate Court also believed the case of the plaintiff. Corporation of Calcutta that the rate bills were also in fact sent under Certificates of Posting (Ext. 2) to the defendants at their residential address at 4, Indra Biswas Road after changing previous address 6, Church lane which was the office of their previous lessee. According to the defendant-appellants, their lessee had vacated the holding in suit on 1st August, 1965 and previous to them the bills used to be presented to their said lessee. 2) to the defendants at their residential address at 4, Indra Biswas Road after changing previous address 6, Church lane which was the office of their previous lessee. According to the defendant-appellants, their lessee had vacated the holding in suit on 1st August, 1965 and previous to them the bills used to be presented to their said lessee. Sitting in second appeal, I am not in a position to reverse the said finding of fact made by the lower Appellate Court to the effect that the Corporation of Calcutta in fact had presented the rate bills by sending them under Certificate of Posting to the defendants at their residential address. In that view of the matter, strictly it was not necessary for the lower Appellate Court to decide whether or not without presentation of the bills, the Corporation was entitled to bring the instant charge suit for recovery of arrear consolidated rates payable in the owner's share. 7. The Division Bench decision of (2) Mathura Prosad Rajghoria & Ors. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 48 CWN 336, is a clear authority for the proposition that the word, "Defaulter" in section 204 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 meant a person who being liable to pay consolidated rate by the date specified in section 149 of the Act had failed to do so. It did not mean a person who being presented with a notice under section 189 of the Calcutta Municipal Act had failed to pay within 7 days. Chakrabarti, J. who was a member of the later Division Bench decision in (3) Subimal Chandra Chatterjee v. The Corporation of Calcutta, 51 CWN 326, had no doubt expressed dissent from the said view of the earlier Division Bench decision in Mathura Prosad Rajghoria's case (supra). But Blank, J. who was a member of the earlier Division Bench which had decided Mathura Prosad Rajghoria's case (supra) and also a member of the later Division Bench decision in Subimal Chandra Chatterjee's case (supra), did not concur with Chakrabarti, J. that the case of Mathura Prosad Rajghoria (supra), was not rightly decided. But Blank, J. who was a member of the earlier Division Bench which had decided Mathura Prosad Rajghoria's case (supra) and also a member of the later Division Bench decision in Subimal Chandra Chatterjee's case (supra), did not concur with Chakrabarti, J. that the case of Mathura Prosad Rajghoria (supra), was not rightly decided. But both the learned Judges were of the view that apart from section 204, section 205 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 authorised institution of a charge suit against the owners for recovery of arrears of occupier's share of consolidated rate and that such a suit under section 205 need not satisfy the requirements of section 204 of the said Act of 1923. Therefore, I hold that the lower Appellate Court had rightly decided that the instant charge suit was maintainable against the defendant owners. I may also record that the defendant-owners who are appellants in this second appeal, neither pleaded nor proved that the arrear consolidated rates claimed by the Corporation of Calcutta had been already paid and that they were not due or payable. Therefore, the amount of owners' share of consolidated rates claimed by the Corporation of Calcutta had remained unpaid. 8. The appellants cannot claim that they were entitled to vacancy-remission under section 194 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The admitted position was that the arrears of consolidated rates were due at the date of filing of their application under section 197 of the Act and under the proviso to the said section, no remission nor refund could be allowed. Only if they were not in arrear, the defendants' prayer for vacancy-remission under section 194 of the Act could have been considered. Their prayer for vacancy-remission was, however, barred under the proviso to section 194 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. 9. The learned Advocate for the appellants did not urge before me that by receiving a cheque for Rs. 1,503.91P. the Corporation of Calcutta was in any was estopped from suing the defendant-owners for recovery of the balance sum due. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I, however, propose to disallow claim of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit. Such interest at the rate of 6% shall be payable only after the final decree for enforcement of the charge is drawn up. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I, however, propose to disallow claim of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit. Such interest at the rate of 6% shall be payable only after the final decree for enforcement of the charge is drawn up. 10. I, accordingly, dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court subject to the modification that decretal amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of the passing of the final decree in the suit. There will be no order as to costs.