BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment made by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in respect of the Premises No. 10c, Sir William Jones Sarani, Calcutta for the period commencing from 4th quarter 1984-85 and 1990-91. The petitioners further prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus against the respondents commending them not to enforce collection of the alleged arrears at consolidated rates and other reliefs mentioned in the prayer. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a registered charitable organisation having its head office at No. 7c, Middleton Street, Calcutta. The other petitioners namely, the petitioners 2 to 7 are the committee members of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner trust is the owner of premises No. 10c, Sir William Jones Sarani. The income from the said trust is applied for the purpose of imparting education amongst the women folk of the society and make them capable of self independent to earn their livelihood amongst other purposes of public utility and social welfare. The trust is also exempted from income tax under section 80g of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ( 3 ) THE premises in question consisting of 8 storied building and all the floors excepting the 2nd floor are leased out by the Petitioners' trust one to General Beopar Company Pvt. Ltd. The 2nd floor is leased out to M/s. Royal Suitings Emporium. The rent paid by General Baopar Company Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioner is Rs. 19,700/- per month. Similarly the rent paid by Royal Suitings Emporium to the petitioners trust is of Rs. 4,800/- per month. Therefore, the rent collected from both the tenants has never exceeded to Rs. 24,500/- per month. ( 4 ) THE Calcutta Municipal Corporation assessed the annual valuation of the premises for the period commencing from 4th quarter 1978-79 at Rs. 3,61,121/ -. The petitioners are said to have filed an objection before the hearing officer and the rental valuation was reduced to Rs. 30,000/- per month against Rs. 40,276/- A further reduction of Rs. 2000/- was permitted to the petitioners on account of operation of lifts. Thus the annual valuation was reduced to Rs. 2,67,730/ -. The petitioners have, inter alia, stated to have cleared up the municipal tax on the aforesaid annual valuation of Rs. 2,67,730/- up to 1st quarter of 1995-96. 30,000/- per month against Rs. 40,276/- A further reduction of Rs. 2000/- was permitted to the petitioners on account of operation of lifts. Thus the annual valuation was reduced to Rs. 2,67,730/ -. The petitioners have, inter alia, stated to have cleared up the municipal tax on the aforesaid annual valuation of Rs. 2,67,730/- up to 1st quarter of 1995-96. ( 5 ) A special notice under section 184 (3) of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was issued to the petitioner trust on 24th February, 1992. In the said notice the Corporation proposed to assess the annual valuation of the said Premises at Rs. 21,01,430/- for the period commencing from 4th quarter 1990-91. The petitioners filed their objection before the hearing officer by their letter dated 28th February, 1992. It was, beware, indicated that the valuation for the period commencing from 1984-85 had still not been decided. ( 6 ) IN the writ petition it has been further stated that the hearing officer has assessed a reasonable rate of rent at Rs. 1,27,000/- to the premises which is said to be fully commercial for the period of commencing from 4th quarter 1991. The assessment of the annual valuation was, however, fixed at Rs. 13,71,600/- for the period of commencing 4th quarter 1984-85 and at Rs. 16,84,800/- for the 4th quarter 1990-91 against the annual valuation at Rs. 2,67,730/ -. The petitioners have inter alia claimed to have filed a review application for reducing the assessment amount before the Municipal Commissioner by their letter dated 15th July, 1992. The petitioners have also claimed that since the building is owned by a trust, therefore, the annual valuation should suitably be refixed. When the petitioners made several representation times without number and there was no response from the respondents Corporation, the petitioners were, therefore, obliged to file this case. ( 7 ) THE petitioners during the pendency of the case, after taking leave from the Court, filed a supplementary affidavit hereby they have stated to have received only a sum of Rs. 24,500/- and in evidence thereof they filed the xerox copy of the agreement. They have also claimed that they have regularly paid up the amount of Rs. 25,22,637. 49/- towards the tax from 3rd quarter of 1990-91 till date. ( 8 ) THE Corporation has filed an affidavit-in-opposition through its assessing inspector. 24,500/- and in evidence thereof they filed the xerox copy of the agreement. They have also claimed that they have regularly paid up the amount of Rs. 25,22,637. 49/- towards the tax from 3rd quarter of 1990-91 till date. ( 8 ) THE Corporation has filed an affidavit-in-opposition through its assessing inspector. The Corporation inter alia has stated that in case the petitioners were affected by such arbitrary assessment, it was open to them to file an appeal under sub section 6 of section 189 of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The hearing officer had provided sufficient opportunities to the petitioners for filing objection. In fact they filed objection and after such objection being taken into consideration the hearing officer assessed the valuation as stated in the writ petition. The Corporation has taken a formidable point that since the petitioners did not prefer an appeal, therefore, this case which has been filed after such an inordinate delay is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) DURING the pendency of the case a special officer was appointed by the Court to find out as to what amount the leassee is getting from the different occupiers. He has shown the number of occupants whose name have been reflected in the report. Detailed rent/occupational charges collected by the lessees has been reflected in his report. ( 10 ) MR. Sen, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has strongly urged that the Corporation while proposing to enhance the tax had not informed the owner the grounds for such revision of tax, nor any reasons has been recorded in the assessment order. Since the order did not contain detailed reasons, therefore, it is a nullity. If the order amounted to nulity, there appears to have no sensible reason as to why a person affected by such illegal order shall file an appeal without resorting to writ jurisdiction. While fixation of municipal tax the Corporation did not consider the requirements as envisaged in section 174 of the CMC Act, 1980. The total assessment was earlier fixed at Rs. 2,94,000/- less municipal taxes and service charges amounted to Rs. 30,000/ -. Now the proposed valuation has been increased by manifolds without any basis. Therefore, such arbitrary fixation of tax must be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. ( 11 ) MR. The total assessment was earlier fixed at Rs. 2,94,000/- less municipal taxes and service charges amounted to Rs. 30,000/ -. Now the proposed valuation has been increased by manifolds without any basis. Therefore, such arbitrary fixation of tax must be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. ( 11 ) MR. Das Adhikari, the learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation has advanced a formidable point by stating that while assessing the municipal tax, the authority should take into consideration the rent reasonably expected, but not the rent actually received. The objection filed by the petitioners did not contain the detailed reasons. The notice was served and after giving an opportunity of hearing the assessment was fixed, therefore, the order passed by the assessment officer can neither be regarded as nullity nor an illegality. The hearing officer passed the order on 26th May, 1992 and it was communicated on the same day to the petitioners. The writ petition was filed three years after demand made by the Corporation. ( 12 ) THE Corporation has passed the final order by fixing the annual valuation at Rs. 18,84,800/- since the premises in question is used as non-residential. As there was no appeal preferred by the petitioners the assessment made by the hearing officer became final and conclusive. There was no procedural irregularity so that the petitioners could have challenged it in this writ. Section 194 was not provided under the old Act. Such provision was for the first time introduced only in the Act of 1980. There was no provision for review or revision, therefore, the petitioners under the pretext of filing an application for review cannot escape the delay in filing this writ petition. It is true that there has been no time limit fixed for filing a writ petition. The provisions of Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. But if reasons for delay is not properly explained, in such cases, the Court cannot be oblivious to such situation and ignores such delay which might prejudice to the other side. ( 13 ) MR. Sen, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has cited the cases i. e. AIR 1964 Supreme Court page 1006, AIR 1993 Supreme Court page 802 and 1998 (8) SCC page 685. There can no quarrel over such legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ( 13 ) MR. Sen, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has cited the cases i. e. AIR 1964 Supreme Court page 1006, AIR 1993 Supreme Court page 802 and 1998 (8) SCC page 685. There can no quarrel over such legal proposition propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All that this Court has to see is whether latches on the part of the petitioners are such as to disentitle them to relief claimed in the application. In this case the assessment order was passed in the year 1992. From the record it has further transpired that before such assessment made by the assessing officer a notice was sent to the petitioner No. 1 and after hearing objections filed by it, he decided the annual assessment of the premises. There is no reason as to why the petitioners trust took so much time in filing of the writ petition. It has been submitted that because of filing of a review/revision of the order passed by the assessing officer the petitioner, therefore, remained under an impression that the Corporation might take an action upon such representation. I failed to understand such ground to be barely enough for taking so much time for filing of the case, there has been an explicable delay caused by the petitioners. ( 14 ) IT is true that there has been no straight jacket formula or inflexible rule as to in what cases the prayer made by the petitioners deserved outright rejection and in which cases the Court shall have to consider the case on merits. Every case shall depend on its own facts and circumstances on the basis of which decisions shall be taken. ( 15 ) THE petitioners since are receiving an amount of Rs. 24,500/- per month, therefore, in this background they could not have been asked by the Corporation to pay taxes at such an enhanced rate. To ascertain the actual amount of rent receipt from the lessee/occupiers special officer was deputed who, after giving notice to all the occupiers and also the lessors mentioned the amount of rent or the occupational charges received from different persons. On perusal of the report it is indicated that the premises might expect reasonable rent as what has been stated in the assessment order. Therefore, such assessment cannot be regarded as arbitrary, excessive or unreasonable. On perusal of the report it is indicated that the premises might expect reasonable rent as what has been stated in the assessment order. Therefore, such assessment cannot be regarded as arbitrary, excessive or unreasonable. Another striking features cannot be lost sight of the fact that the petitioners have themselves admitted the reasonable rent at Rs. 1,56,000/- per month. Total assessment order made at Rs. 13,71,600/- with effect from 4th quarter 1984-85. Similarly the reasonably expected rent was fixed at Rs. 16,84,800/- with effect from 4th quarter of 1990-91. ( 16 ) AN inexorable plea has been advanced by Mr. Sen that since the impugned order did not contain the detailed reasons, therefore, on that ground alone the order should be treated as nullity. But I have carefully gone through the orders in question and also the report of the special officer about reasonable expectation of rent which has been collected in present years, they almost called with the special officer's report. Therefore, such findings cannot be said to be without basis. An identical question came before the special bench of this Court in a reference matter being WP No. 1804 of 1994 in the case of Amrit Lal Khimji and Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. There the special bench came to hold as follows :"the only question which now remains to be considered is as regard the contention of the petitioner as to whether the tax is primarily payable by the tenants and not by the landlords. The said contention, if upheld, would be in clear derogation to be provisions of section 193 of the said Act. such a construction, thus, cannot be resorted to on the face of the said provisions. The question as to whether who would be primarily liable to pay the tax and as to whether such amount of tax can be recoverable from any other person would depend upon the nature of the levy and the purport and object of the Act. " ( 17 ) ANOTHER contention has been raised by Mr. Sen, that the landlord claimed to have received only about Rs. 24,000/- as earlier rent whereas they are required to pay tax on the basis of enhanced rate of which has been increased by manifolds. Thus it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. " ( 17 ) ANOTHER contention has been raised by Mr. Sen, that the landlord claimed to have received only about Rs. 24,000/- as earlier rent whereas they are required to pay tax on the basis of enhanced rate of which has been increased by manifolds. Thus it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. ( 18 ) IN section 193 of the Act it has referred to incidence of consolidated rate on lands and buildings provided that the same shall be primarily leviable upon the persons mentioned therein viz. 1. If the land or the building is let upon the lessor and; 2. If the land and building is sub let upon the superior lessor. ( 19 ) IT has been provided in section 194 that there shall be apportionment of liability for consolidated rate on land and building when the premises assessed or let or sub let. Therefore, on giving anxious thought over the matter I found that the petitioners has primary obligation to pay the consolidated tax to the Corporation and can take steps to realise the proportionate consolidated tax from the tenant/lessee if any. Merely because it was let out to different parsons, such obligation to pay taxes by the owner cannot at all be avoided. ( 20 ) AN identical question also appeared to be considered before the learned single Bench Judge of this Court reported in 2000 (1) CHN page 220 in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Indian Automobiles. The learned Judge on the basis of the provision of section 194 of 1980 Act directed the amount to be recoverable from the owner who on the other hand can recover such consolidated rate from his tenants. ( 21 ) NEXT question shall arise as to whether non-filing of the appeal against an order of assessment shall preclude the writ petitioners from challenging such assessment in the case. The identical question came in other cases W. P. No. 1989 of 1996 with W. P. No. 2043 of 1996 where it was decided by this bench (in which I was a party) on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 2211 held that the assessment will not be liable to be set aside, in case no appeal was carried out against such assessment. Another Division Bench Judgment in 1998 (1) CHN page 492 in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Bala Bestos India Ltd. and Ors. has been cited where it has been held that;18. "in view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, we are of the view that it was a fit case in which the learned trial Judge ought not to have exercised to entertain the writ application, and ask the petitioners to avail statutory alternative remedy. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioners' remedy is to avail a statutory alternative remedy by preferring an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal as contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 189 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. We may note that the appeal which may be preferred by the writ petitioners, might have become barred by limitation, but we are sure, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were advised to file this writ application the Tribunal, if any application for condonation of delay is filed, shall take into consideration the said and pass an appropriate order as regard condonation of delay in accordance with law. " ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the case of the petitioners from any angle and examining the contention raised by the petitioners in the light of the judgment quoted above it is found that the writ petition is benefit of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.