M. R. MALLICK, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioners state as follows: the writ petitioners purchased in 1973 old and dilapidated structures at premises no. , 1/1, 1/2 and 3 and portion of 21/1, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, subsequently re-numbered as 2, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta at Rs. 58,999. 98 p. with old and existing tenant who were paying at a low rate aggregating to Rs. 508/- per month. The old structure was demolished and a building sanction was-granted for a four storied building in respect of which constructions are being made in part. ( 2 ) THE ground floor with a floor area of 3400 Sq. ft. was let out to old tenants at the old and agreed rent totalling Rs. 508/- per month to rehabilitate them after completing construction in 1983-84. A Mezzanine floor was also constructed having an area of 1100 Sq. fit. for the existing and old tenants for storing purposes. The Mezzanine Boor is not a separate floor but a part of the ground floor and the ground floor and Mezzanine floor is liable to assessment as such. The first floor of the said premises was constructed in 1986 and let out to the State Bank of India with effect from 19. 4. 1986 at a rental of Rs. 26,906/- per month with covered floor space area of 3728 Sq. ft. at a rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. including local and other taxes, maintenance service and other charges of the building, The contention of the writ petition in para 7 of the writ petition is that they had to take loan of Rs. 10 lakhs and the rent was notionally fixed at Rs. 24,171. 42 p. but the rent actually available to them is Rs. 1,924/per month. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioners were served with two notices under section 180 of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 in respect of 1700. sq. ft. in the ground floor of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. for 3rd quarter 1983-84 and for four quarters 1983-84 respectively. The said notices were issued on 15. 9. 1983 and/or thereabouts and objections to the assessment were made, and at the hearing on 17. 2. 1986 the assessments were made in respect of the said two portions of the ground floor by two orders dated 26. 2. 1986 by reducing the assessment on the basis of rent at Re. The said notices were issued on 15. 9. 1983 and/or thereabouts and objections to the assessment were made, and at the hearing on 17. 2. 1986 the assessments were made in respect of the said two portions of the ground floor by two orders dated 26. 2. 1986 by reducing the assessment on the basis of rent at Re. 1/- per sq. ft. The assessment orders are Annexures 'b' of the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE writ petitioners were thereafter served with notice under section 192 of C. M. C. Act, 1980 dated 8. 2. 1986 whereby a proposal was made for amendment in the entry of the assessment book by increasing the annual values from Rs. 81,360/- to Rs. 4,60,080f- w. e. f. 1st qr. 1985-86 as in the opinion of the Corporation authority the premises was substantially under valued by reason of mistake or error in calculation. Objection was filed on 14. 3. 1986 and in the said objection it was contended that annual value of ground floor would be Rs. 4,299/- and in respect of the first floor Rs. 23,448/. The copies of the said notice and objection are Annexures 'c' and 'd' of the writ petition. By order dated 11. 4. 1986 the Deputy Municipal Commissioner Revenue assessed all the floors on the basis of a rent of Rs. 27,104/- and a copy of the said order is Annexure 'e' of the writ petition. The contention of the writ petitioner is that mezzanine floor is a part of the ground floor and cannot be separately assessed and reliance has been placed on sections 179, 184, 185, 188, 189, 191 C. M. C Act, 1980 to contend that the said amendment of assessment under section 192 of the Act of 1980 was arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires. It is contended that in the instant case the old existing valuation ceased to have any force as the building was totally demolished. Hence there was no existing valuation at the date of the coming into force of C. M. C. Act, 1980. Notice under section 184 for fresh valuation under the said Act was not issued nor served and hence no fresh annual valuation could be made in respect of the whole or part of the premises without notice under section 184 nor periodic assessment could be made under section 179 of the said Act. Notice under section 184 for fresh valuation under the said Act was not issued nor served and hence no fresh annual valuation could be made in respect of the whole or part of the premises without notice under section 184 nor periodic assessment could be made under section 179 of the said Act. It is further contended that the last annual valuation was assessed at Rs. 81,360/- with effect from fourth quarter of 1983-84 and so there was no scope for amendment of annual valuation under section 192 of the Act. Hence in this writ petition it is prayed for revoking or setting aside the amendment of the annual valuation under section 192 by order dated 11. 4. 19s6 by Deputy Commissioner (R ). The said order is Annexure 'e' of the writ petition and its validity is being challenged both on the grounds that section 192 of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and in any event any amendment under section 192 of the said Act without initial compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in previous sections of Chapter XII of the Act is also ultra vires the provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) THE Respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition which states as follows : the Annual valuation of the premises was assessed with effect from 4th quarter of 1983-84 at Rs. 81,380/- and after objection it was reduced by the Hearing Officer at Rs. 32,367/ -. Subsequent to such assessment substantial additions and alterations were made and it became necessary to make an intermediate assessment in view of the additions and alterations. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) assessed the premises with effect from 1st quarter 1985-86 at Rs. 4,40,080/- in accordance with section 192 sub-sections (i), (ii) and (vii) on the basis of the rental income of the ground floor at the actual rent of Rs. 502/- and the first floor at the actual rental income of Rs. 26,096/- and the total rental value including the mezzanine floor was assessed at Rs. 27,104/- and annual valuation was made accordingly. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was perfectly justified in making the revaluation under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply contending that the Act does not provide for an intermediate assessment and there was no necessity for making intermediate assessment in the instant case. 27,104/- and annual valuation was made accordingly. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was perfectly justified in making the revaluation under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply contending that the Act does not provide for an intermediate assessment and there was no necessity for making intermediate assessment in the instant case. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) illegally assessed and fixed the annual valuation from the 1st quarter of 1985-86 under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 by way of amendment of the Municipal Assessment Book and entire procedure was illegal that the last assessment from the 4th quarter of 1983-84 was made in terms of the provision of Calcutta Municipal Act 1951 and the additions and alterations could not be brought under the purview of section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which came into force on 4. 1. 1984 subsequent to the above valuation made and that additions and alterations could not be brought under the purview of section 192 of the present Act without first taking recourse to the Assessment procedure laid down either in C. M Act of 1951 or C. M. C. Act of 1980. ( 7 ) THE writ petitioner has also filed a petition verified on 30. 3. 1989 with the leave of the Court making a specific prayer that section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act be declared ultra vires being violative of section 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300a of the Constitution and that the assessment be made in accordance with sections 174 (1), 184, 188, 189 and 190 of the CMC. Act and rate bills issued on this basis of section 192 of the Act be struck down. ( 8 ) THE writ petitioner challenges the vires of section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. It is submitted that section 192 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates a classification or unfair discrimination between the rate payers who are governed by sections 184 and 185 of the Act and section 192 of the Act which is claimed to cover the same field of liability for Municipal Taxes. It is submitted that section 192 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates a classification or unfair discrimination between the rate payers who are governed by sections 184 and 185 of the Act and section 192 of the Act which is claimed to cover the same field of liability for Municipal Taxes. The hostile discrimination between three classes of assesses for determination of Municipal taxes has no rational basis or nexus or with the main purpose of the Act and the patent hostile discrimination in the classification of the assesses brings it within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) SECONDLY, it is submitted that section 192 is unreasonable and unreasonableness will be apparent from the previous legislation in respect of the same subject matter as regards amendment of the Municipal Assessment Book. Section 192 provides for no reason to be given for re-opening of assessment or amendment of the Assessment Fee Book after the assessment has become final and the non obstante clause of section 192 practically takes away all the rights of the assesses under the provisions of assessment as provided in sections 174 to 190. ( 10 ) THIRDLY, section 192 denies the equal protection of taxation laws to the assessee under the section. ( 11 ) FOURTHLY, Section confers upon the executive or administrative authority unbridled or unguided or uncontrolled discritionary power which is clearly discriminatory. ( 12 ) FIFTHLY, the section 192 may also affect persons who carry on business of selling and letting houses and premises and excessive increase of assessment by application of section 192, which results in. serious interference and prejudice to the proper carrying on business is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. ( 13 ) SIXTHLY, the assessment of property on wrong basis puts the property in jeopardy and amounts to deprivation of property. serious interference and prejudice to the proper carrying on business is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. ( 13 ) SIXTHLY, the assessment of property on wrong basis puts the property in jeopardy and amounts to deprivation of property. ( 14 ) ON behalf of the Respondent it is urged that the provision for amendment of the Assessment Book in one form or other is in the Statute book of the Calcutta Corporation since the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1923, that was there in Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and has been brought in the present Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, that there has not been any fundamental difference in these provisions and that the validity of the provision has always been upheld and there is, therefore, no valid or tenable reason for striking down section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act on any of the grounds alleged by the petitioner. ( 15 ) THERE can be no doubt that the provision for the amendment of the Assessment book found place in the Calcutta Municipal Act 1923 in section 140. This has also been incorporated in section 185 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 with certain modification. The said provision has been reproduced in section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with certain modifications. ( 16 ) THE same provision has also been incorporated in section 138 of the Bengal Municipal Act as amended. The section 192 reads thus:section 192: Amendment of Municipal Assessment Book. The said provision has been reproduced in section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with certain modifications. ( 16 ) THE same provision has also been incorporated in section 138 of the Bengal Municipal Act as amended. The section 192 reads thus:section 192: Amendment of Municipal Assessment Book. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 190 the Municipal Commissioner may, at any time, amend the Municipal Assessment Book - (i) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted, or (ii) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted together with valuation thereof, or (iii) by striking out the name of any person (or any land or building) not liable for the payment of consolidated rate, or (iv) by increasing or decreasing for adequate reasons the amount of any annual value and of the consolidated rate thereupon, or (v) by making or cancelling any entry excepting any land or building from liability to consolidated rate, or (vi) by altering the assessment on the land or building which has been erroneously valued or assessed through fraud, mistake or accident, in which case such erroneous valuation or assessment took elect, or (vii) by inserting or altering an entry in respect of any building, erected, re-erected, altered or added to, after the preparation of the assessment book, in which case such insertion or alteration shall take effect from the date such erection, re-erection, alteration or addition was made. (2) (i) A notice of not less than fifteen days shall be given to the owner or to the lessee, sub-lessee or occupier of the land or building of the place, time and date on which any amendment of the Assessment Book is intended to be made under this section. (ii) Any person on whom a notice of amendment is served under this sub-section may file an objection in writing to the Municipal Commissioner at least three days before the date fixed in the notice and the provisions of sections 186 to 190 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such objection. " ( 17 ) ON behalf of the petitioner attempt has been made to point out the differences in the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, Calcutta Municipal Act 1951 and those of section 192 of the present Act of 1980. " ( 17 ) ON behalf of the petitioner attempt has been made to point out the differences in the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, Calcutta Municipal Act 1951 and those of section 192 of the present Act of 1980. I am of the view that such differences do not render the present section 192 at all arbitrary. The grounds have been specified in section 192 which would justify the Municipal authority to amend the Assessment book. The party concerned has to be served with notice before making such amendment. In that provision there is both the possibility of the valuation being enhanced or reduced. Whether it is assessment u/s. 184 or u/s. 192 fullfledged hearing is given to the assessee before the Assessment is finalised. The person aggrieved has the right of appeal. If the Municipal authority did not have any valid ground for making amendment to the Assessment book, any person aggrieved can invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court against any alleged illegal and uttra vires act of the Municipal authority. The assessees upon whom the Municipal authority can issue notice for intermediate Assessment after the Assessment is finalised by taking provisions u/s. 174 to 190 of this Act form a distinct class. The assessees forming such distinct class are only called upon to participate in intermediate assessment. Therefore provision does not appear to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. ( 18 ) IT is not correct to say that the Municipal authority without any valid reason can take steps for amendment of the Assessment. Section clearly provides under which circumstances the authority can re-open the assessment. If any such ground were not there, the Municipal authority could not issue any notice and if without any valid ground such an action is taken, such an act can be declared illegal or void by any court of law. ( 19 ) THERE is also no substance in the contention of the petitioner that section 192 denies equal protection of taxation laws to the assessee or that it gives unbridled or unguided power to the Municipal authority. The Municipal authority can issue notice u/s. 192 only when the case of the assessee falls under any of the grounds mentioned in the section. Those grounds in my view, appear to be valid grounds for making intermediate assessment by amending the Assessment book. The Municipal authority can issue notice u/s. 192 only when the case of the assessee falls under any of the grounds mentioned in the section. Those grounds in my view, appear to be valid grounds for making intermediate assessment by amending the Assessment book. ( 20 ) I also do not find any reason to hold that section 192 results in serious interference and prejudice to the persons who are in the business of selling or letting out houses in Calcutta. Every assessee has to pay the proper Municipal taxes. If due to certain valid reasons the assessment once made has to be amended in between one general assessment and another there is no question of any person being interfered with in his business of selling or letting out house property in Calcutta. There is also no substance in the contention of the petitioner that section 192 puts the property in jeopardy and amounts to deprivation of the property. ( 21 ) IN the result, I am unable to hold that section 192 is constitutionally invalid. It does not infringe Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) or 300a of the Constitution. ( 22 ) THE Second ground of challenge of the petitioner is that as the Assessment which was amended by invoking section 192 of the Act was made under the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951 and such Assessment cannot be Amended by section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and any amendment to the Assessment made under 1951 Act has to be done by taking recourse to fresh assessment as provided in section 174 to 190 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. ( 23 ) ON behalf of the Respondent it is contended that there is no bar to the amendment of Assessment Book in respect of the assessment made under the provision of Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951 and that such assessment under the 1951 Act is deemed to be the assessment under the present Act in view of section 179 of the present Act. ( 24 ) SECTION 179 of the present Act speaks of periodical assessment. ( 24 ) SECTION 179 of the present Act speaks of periodical assessment. It has been clearly provided in sub-section (1) of section 179 of the present Act that the annual value of any land or building situated in any ward of the Corporation which has been determined before and is in force on the date of commencement of the Act shall remain in force, and shall be deemed to be annual value for the purpose of assessment of consolidated rate on such land or building under this Act until a fresh annual valuation is enforced under the Act. ( 25 ) IN that view of the matter even if the assessment of the premises in question was made under the provision of Calcutta Municipal Act of 1951, such assessment is deemed to be assessment under the present Act and entries made in the Assessment book on the basis thereof are entries of the Assessment Book made under the present Act. Therefore, amendment of such assessment book on any of the grounds mentioned in section 192 of the present Act is quite permissible and there is no necessity for taking recourse to fresh annual valuation as provided in section 174 to 190 of the present Act. Therefore, this contention of the petitioners also fails. ( 26 ) THE third ground on which the petitioners challenge the present reassessment of the premises in question is that the Corporation authority committed a great illegality in taking the actual rent realised by the petitioners from the premises in question, that the assessment on that basis is mechanical and without application of mind and rental value of the premises has to be objectively assessed regard being had to the rent with rent prevailing in the locality. ( 27 ) ON behalf of the Respondents it is urged that there is no illegalities in the Municipal authority assessing annual valuation on the basis of the actual rent received by the petitioners and in support a decision of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1983 Calcutta 479 (Corporation of Calcutta vs. East India Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd.) has been referred to. ( 28 ) THERE is no dispute that in this case after the assessment from the 4th quarter of 1983-84 was finalised after hearing objection and valuation reduced to Rs. 32,367/- there was substantial additions and alterations in the building. Pvt. Ltd.) has been referred to. ( 28 ) THERE is no dispute that in this case after the assessment from the 4th quarter of 1983-84 was finalised after hearing objection and valuation reduced to Rs. 32,367/- there was substantial additions and alterations in the building. A first floor was constructed and let out to State Bank of India at Rs. 7/- per square feet amounting to Rs. 26,096/- per month with effect from 29th March 1985. Because of this newly constructed first floor there was definite ground for the Corporation to issue notice u/s. 192 of the Act. Even though the notice issued, did not properly reflect that aspect of the case but there is no doubt that after issuing of the notice the petitioners appeared before the Municipal authority and took part in the proceeding regarding revision of the valuation. The Corporation authority heard the petitioner in the matter of enhancement of the valuation resulting in the substantial additions and alterations made in the first floor and the subsequent letting out the said first floor to the State Bank of India. The petitioners cannot dispute that the amendment of the Assessment book was necessitated by such additions and alterations. So there was no illegality in issuing notice proposing revaluation and the ground for revaluation was definitely within the purview of section 192 of the present Act. ( 29 ) THE only objection which the petitioners can, however, raise is that the annual valuation on the basis of the actual rent paid by the State Bank of India is illegal and that the Corporation authority has to make the valuation according to provisions of section 174 of the Act. In view of sub-section (i) of section 174 the annual value of the annual value of any land or building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent including the service charges, if any, at which such land or building might at the time of assessment be reasonably expected to let from year to year less an allowance of ten percent for the cost of repairs etc. ( 30 ) MR. ( 30 ) MR. Bankim Dutt for the petitioners has urged that the rent which the petitioners has been realising from State Bank of India did not reflect the rental value of the premises in the locality, that the petitioners having taken advances from the State Bank of India for constructing the first floor, the State Bank of India agreed to pay the rent much higher than that prevailing in the area so that the advances taken could be quickly liquidated and that Corporation mechanically accepted the said actual rent for assessing the first floor of the premises mechanically without actually assessing the rental value of the premises by taking into account the rent which such premises would fetch in the locality at about the material time. ( 31 ) IN support the learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to me several Supreme Court decisions specially the decision in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Rate Payers' Association, AIR 1980 S. C. page 541. ( 32 ) ON behalf of the Respondents, my attention has been drawn to the Division Bench of this Court in Corporation of Calcutta vs. East India Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1982 Cal. 479 and it has been submitted that Division Bench in that decision considered all the Supreme Court decisions on the point including the decision in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor's case arid has held that regard being had to the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, there would be no bar on the assessing authority to assess the annual value with reference to the contractual rent as is being paid without objection by the tenant to the landlord. On considering the above judgment of the Division Bench I find that the Division Bench has overruled the finding of the learned trial judge that for the purpose of assessing annual value the assessing authority cannot base the assessment on the contractual rent but has to follow the principles of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for determining the fair rent that there is no bar for the authority to assess the annual new value on the basis of this actual rent. Therefore, the - Respondent did not commit any illegality in assessing the annual value of the first floor on the basis of the contractual rent paid by the State Bank of India to the petitioners. Therefore, the - Respondent did not commit any illegality in assessing the annual value of the first floor on the basis of the contractual rent paid by the State Bank of India to the petitioners. ( 33 ) IT is to be remembered that for the ground floor consisting of 3600 square feet the Corporation authority took into account the actual rent of Rs. 508/- per month because the petitioners had to let out the ground floor to the original tenants of the ground floor at the old rent after the old ground floor was demolished and reconstructed. Regarding the mezzanine floor of 1000 square feet personally occupied by the petitioners the rental value of 50 paise per square feet was assessed and Rs. 500/- was assessed as rental value. The rental value of the premises after its additions and alterations were assesseed as follows: Ground floor Rs. 508/- Mezzanine floor Rs. 500/- First floor Rs. 26,096/- Total Rs. 27,104/- ( 34 ) IN that view of the matter, I am unable to hold that any illegality or irregularity was committed by the Municipal authority in making revised valuations taking the rental value of the premises at Rs. 27,104/ -. ( 35 ) IN that view of the matter all the contentions raised by the writ petitioners are rejected. ( 36 ) THE revaluation was made on giving proper opportunity of hearing and the petitioners participated in the hearing. After such assessment made the petitioners had the right of appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The petitioners without resorting to that remedy has moved this Court. As the vires of the section has been challenged and as the jurisdiction of the Municipal authority to make assessment u/s. 192 of the Act has been challenged the writ petition has been entertained no doubt. But there being no merits in any of the contentions raised in the writ petition the same is hereby dismissed. ( 37 ) HOWEVER, no order for costs is passed. All interim orders are vacated. The learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order which is refused. Petition dismissed