Judgment : Mookerjee, J: The Corporation of Calcutta preferred this appeal from the decision under S. 183 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, made by the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, in appeal preferred by the respondent, who was the owner of premises No 105, Ultadanga Main Road. The respondent under S. 181 of the Act had filed an objection against the increase made in the valuation of the said holding which was recorded as Bustee with effect from 3rd quarter, 1956-57. The Special Officer-II, Corporation of Calcutta having disposed of the said objection by fixing the annual value of the holding at Rs. 7256/-, the respondent had preferred the aforesaid appeal to the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah. The learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Sealdah, has set aside the said order of assessment on the ground that the Standing Finance Committee of the Corporation not having framed rules under S. 173 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, the impugned assessment of the Bustee premises by making separate valuation of the land and the huts was illegal. 2. Section 173 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 did not either impliedly or expressly lay down that until rules were made by the Standing Finance Committee, consolidated rate could not be lawfully imposed in the case of Bustee In other words, existence of rules under S. 173 of the said Act was not condition precedent for exercise of power of the Corporation under S. 165 read with S. 168 of the Act to impose consolidated rate upon Bustas. The Corporation had been authorised by S. 165 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 to impose upon all lards and buildings in Calcutta graduated consolidated rate on the annual valuation determined under Chapter-XI of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. For the purpose of assessment to the consolidated rate the value of lands and buildings were to be calculated according to the provisions contained in S. 168 of the said Act Clause (iii) of sub-s. (4) of the said S. 168 of the Act, inter alia, laid down that the annual value of a Bustee shall be deemed to be gross annual rent at which land (excluding land left vacant for giving access to any hut etc) might reasonably be expected to let plus the gross annual rent at which the huts erected thereupon might reasonably be expected to let. The provision further required that in calculating such gross annual rent of huts, rent of the land payable and also an allowance or 10% were to be deducted Thus, S. 168(4)(iii) of the provided for separately calculating the hypothetical annual rents of the land comprised in a Bustee and of the huts standing thereon. Undoutedly, when rules would be made under S. 173 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, such separate valuation of lands and huts in a Bustee ought to be made according to the said rules. But, as already observed power to impose consolidated rate upon a bustee was derived from the provisions contained in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and exercise of such power was not made conditional upon making of rules under S. 173 of the said Act. 3. Rules contemplated by S. 173 of the Act were in the nature of byelaws and they could not certainly override the Corporation's power to impose consolidated rates concerned by statute. Therefore, we conclude that the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Sealdah was wrong in holding that until framing of the rules under S.173 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, the Corporation's power to impose consolidated rate upon a Bustee remained suspended. Therefore, the impugned assessment of consolidated rate upon the respondent's holding record as a Bustee was wrongly pronounced as ultra vires. The learned Judge, Small Causes, Court, Sealdah ought to have decided the merits of the appeal by considering whether the valuation of the lands and huts comprised in the respondent's holding had been made in accordance with the provisions of S. 165 read with S.168(4)(ii) of the Calcutta Municipal Act Therefore, the same ought to be remitted back for fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order complained of and remand the case to the Court of Small Causes, Sealdah for deciding whether the order of assessment of the holding in question made with effect from 3rd quarter, 1956-57 was correctly made. Let the records be immediately sent down. No decree need be drawn up. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside.