JUDGMENT The Court: Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation when the matter is taken up for consideration in the second call. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, was initially a tenant of the second floor and roof of premises No. 29B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Calcutta-700006, and was paying a monthly rent of a Rs. 80/- for the Second Floor and Rs. 25/- for the Roof, as per the English Calendar. The other portions of the building were occupied by other tenants and the total rents payable in respect of the said building was Rs. 202/- per month. 2. It is the petitioner's case that he purchased the said premises on 25th May, 1993, and, thereafter, he got his name mutated in the records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It appear that immediately after mutation of his name as owner of the aforesaid premises, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Municipal Authorities for determination of the Annual Valuation thereof on and from the second Quarter of 1993-94 by way of intermediate valuation on account of such transfer. 3. Appearing in person, the petitioner submitted that he submitted his objection to the proposed valuation by stating that there had been no change in the rental income and there was, therefore, no scope of enhancement of the Annual Valuation. It was also mentioned in the objection that the proposed valuation assessed on the purchase value of price of the premises, was not sustainable. It was mentioned further that since the reasonable rent of the premises was easily assessable, the Municipal Authorities should apply the rental method for determination of the Annual Valuation as speculated in sub-s. (1) of S. 174 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 4. The petitioner submitted that at the time of hearing of the objection before the Hearing Officer, the suggestions made by the representing Officer on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation were accepted and the Annual Valuation for the 2nd Quarter of 1985-86 was determined at Rs. 2380/- on the basis of the monthly rental income taken to be Rs.220/- for the said premises. 5. The petitioner urged that the Hearing Officer again accepted the submissions of the Representing Officer for the Municipal Authorities and taking the monthly rental income of the premises to be Rs. 2380/- on the basis of the monthly rental income taken to be Rs.220/- for the said premises. 5. The petitioner urged that the Hearing Officer again accepted the submissions of the Representing Officer for the Municipal Authorities and taking the monthly rental income of the premises to be Rs. 230/-, he fixed the Annual Valuation for the Second Quarter of 1991-92 at Rs. 2480/-, although, there had been no enhancement of the rents. Thereafter, an intermediate assessment was made from the Second Quarter of 1993-94 on the basis of the purchase price of the premises and the Annual Valuation was fixed thereupon at Rs. 5620/- being give per cent of the purchase price, less admissible deduction therefor. 6. It was submitted by the petitioner that all the three valuations were made by the Hearing Officer without taking into accounts the petitioner's submissions. 7. It was urged by the petitioner that the intermediate valuation for the Second Quarter of 1993-94 on the basis of the purchase price was illegal, unfair and arbitrary and was liable to be struck down. 8. The petitioner urged that the same question had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of Sree Mahamaya Mining and Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors., reported in 1995 (2) CHN at page 125, and this Court had in the said case struck down the provisions of s. 180(2)(i) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, as being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. The petitioner urged that since the intermediate valuation had been made on the basis of the said provisions, which is no longer in existence, such valuation was liable to be quashed. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the petitioner and in view of the fact that the provisions of s. 180(2)(i) of the above act were declared ultra vires in the aforesaid case, the intermediate valuation made in respect of the petitioner's premises for the second Quarter of 1993-94 on the selfsame basis cannot be allowed to stand. 10. The writ application is, therefore, allowed and the Annual Valuation made in respect of the Second Quarter of 1993-94, in respect of the petitioner's premises, is hereby quashed. 11. There will be no costs as to others. 12. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this Judgment. Petition allowed.