JUDGMENT : - Barin Ghosh, J.: These writ petitions were filed by M/s. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. and its Director, hereinafter collectively called "the petitioner". The petitioner is the owner of premises No.6, Lyons Range, Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as "the said premises". 2. Steps were taken by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent Corporation") to amend the Municipal Assessment Book in relation to the said premises under section 192 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act; 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and accordingly a notice was issued on 21" March, 1989. The petitioner by filing a writ petition challenged the said notice. Having noted the fact that the petitioner has filed an objection and that a date of hearing has been fixed to consider such objection, the Court did not interfere in the said writ petition. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and considering his objection the Hearing Officer fixed the reasonable rent of the said premises at Rs. 3,41,342/- per month by an order dated 21st March,1989. Against the order dated 21st March, 1989 the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2377 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the first petition"). As appears from the order dated 21st March, 1989 before the Hearing Officer the petitioner contended that it is collecting rent of Rs.1,74,741.52/- per month from the said premises. As against that the respondent Corporation contended that the premises is earning net rent of Rs. 3,60,272/- per month. The order dated 21st March, 1989 further records that whereas the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of its claim, the respondent Corporation has produced written statements of the tenants, details of rent receipts, inspection report etc. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt with at all in the first petition. 3. In the first petition the petitioner also challenged the immediately prior valuation made in the similar circumstances by the order of the Hearing Officer dated 7th. October, 1988. 4. By reason of the said order dated 21st. March, 1989 the annual value of the said premises stood at Rs. 36,86,490/- with effect from 4th. quarter 198687. Prior thereto the same was fixed at Rs. 18,90,000/- by reason of an order of the Hearing Officer dated 7th October, 1988. October, 1988. 4. By reason of the said order dated 21st. March, 1989 the annual value of the said premises stood at Rs. 36,86,490/- with effect from 4th. quarter 198687. Prior thereto the same was fixed at Rs. 18,90,000/- by reason of an order of the Hearing Officer dated 7th October, 1988. In the first petition the validity of sections 171, 174(1) and (4A) read with Schedule VIII, as well as sections 184(3), 185, 191 and 192 of the said Act were also challenged. At the hearing the challenge to the said sections of the Act, however, was not pressed. 5. While the first writ petition was pending the respondent Corporation proposed to revalue the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 48,16,070/ - with effect from 4th. quarter 1987-88 on the basis that the said premises is fetching a rent of Rs. 4,45, 932/- per month. The petitioner gave an objection thereto and thereupon a hearing notice was issued. After such hearing the valuation of the said premises was fixed at Rs. 45,42,070/- by the Hearing Officer. In W.P. No. 1005 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the second petition") the petitioner challenged the said valuation. In the second petition the petitioner also challenged the validity of sections 174(1) and (4A) read with Schedule VIII as well as sections 191 and 192 of the said Act. At the hearing the challenge thrown to the validity of the provisions of the said Act was not pressed. 6. It has not been mentioned in the second petition that before the Hearing Officer the respondent Corporation produced records showing the rental income fetched by the said premises. It was also not stated in the second petition that while the respondent Corporation was claiming on the basis of the actual rent paid by the occupiers, the petitioner was claiming on the basis of actual rent received by it. It was, however, contended in the second petition that annual value in so far as the petitioner is concerned can at the best be determined on the basis of actual rent received by it and/or on the basis of standard rent. 7. Subsequent thereto in 1996 W.P. No. 2666 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner, wherein while challenging the aforementioned provisions of the Act the annual valuation made at Rs. 48,35,160/- of the said premises with effect from 4th quarter 1992-93 was challenged. 7. Subsequent thereto in 1996 W.P. No. 2666 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner, wherein while challenging the aforementioned provisions of the Act the annual valuation made at Rs. 48,35,160/- of the said premises with effect from 4th quarter 1992-93 was challenged. While these matters were being heard on 7th March, 2002 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said writ petition was already been withdrawn and accordingly the same was recorded in an order passed by me on 7th March, 2002. 8. In W.P. No. 2049 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the third petition") the petitioner has contended that sale of ground floor and mezzanine floor of about 12,665 sq. ft. at the said premises by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent Corporation and by a letter dated 17th January, 1998 the petitioner was informed by the respondent Corporation that it has apportioned the value of the property in question and has agreed to mutate the names of purchaser as the owner/owners of the sold portion of the premises subject to payment of mutation fees and proportionate share of taxes. Subsequent thereto by separate notices all dated 28th August, 1998 the respondent Corporation proposed to fix the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 35,73,120/- with effect from 1st quarter 1988-89 at Rs. 40,11,400/- with effect from 3rd quarter 198889, at Rs. 46,70,380/- with effect from 4th quarter 1990-91, at Rs. 47,95,380/- with effect from 4th. quarter 1992-93, at Rs. 74,91,780/- with effect from 1st quarter 1994-95, at Rs. 89,49,790/- with effect from 1st, quarter 1996-97, at Rs. 93,57,740/- with effect from 1st. quarter 1997-98 and at Rs. 96,50,420/- with effect from 2nd. quarter 1997-98. The petitioner objected to such valuation. In the notices it was mentioned that the revised annual valuation so assessed is due to the ground as stated in item "hearing" overleaf. The petitioner objected to such proposed assessment on the identical as follows:- a) That the basis and standard of valuation are wrong, faulty, erroneous and illegal; b) That the valuation lacks uniformity, unfair and excessive. c) Excessive and inequitable assessed valuation will cause a great hardship. d) That we reserve the right to make and shall make further submission at the time of hearing. 9. The objections were then heard. Whereupon by orders all dated 27th July, 1999 the annual valuation was fixed at Rs. c) Excessive and inequitable assessed valuation will cause a great hardship. d) That we reserve the right to make and shall make further submission at the time of hearing. 9. The objections were then heard. Whereupon by orders all dated 27th July, 1999 the annual valuation was fixed at Rs. 30,52,270/- with effect from 1st. quarter 1988-89, at Rs.30,91,000/- with effect from 3rd. quarter 1988-89, at Rs.33,32,880/- with effect from 4th. quarter 1990-91, at Rs. 60,45,490/- with effect from 1st. quarter 1994-95, at Rs. 76,37,270/- with effect from 1st. quarter 1996-97, at Rs. 82,34,220/- with effect from 1st. quarter 1997-98 and at Rs. 85,25,070/- with effect from 2nd. quarter 1997-98. In the third petition the petitioner has challenged the said valuations. The grounds of challenge are that there is no reason to increase valuation from Rs. 30,91.000/- to Rs. 85,25,070/ - from 1st. quarter 1988-89 to 4th. quarter 1999-2000 and that the valuation includes the rent realized from the portion of the ground floor and the mezzanine floor of the premises sold by the petitioner. In addition to that it was contended that whereas the valuation of the sold out portion on and from 4th quarter 1997-98 has been fixed on the basis of rent at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. ft. per month, the valuation of the upper storeys of the self-same building has been valued on the basis of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month and accordingly it has been claimed that such fixation is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. 10. It has not been stated in the third petition that before the Hearing Officer the respondent Corporation produced records, which went to show that the proposed valuation do not take into account rental income of the sold out portion of the said premises. It has also not been mentioned in the said portion that there was hardly any dispute inter se the petitioner and the respondent Corporation as to rent realized by the said premises. It was also not mentioned in the said petition that comparative charts containing claims of the petitioner and the respondent Corporation had been submitted by the petitioner before the Hearing Officer. It was also not mentioned in the third petition that real dispute inter se the parties was in relation to rent realized by the tenant of the petitioner from its sub-tenant. It was also not mentioned in the third petition that real dispute inter se the parties was in relation to rent realized by the tenant of the petitioner from its sub-tenant. It was also not stated in the said petition that whereas the petitioner contended before the Hearing Officer that rent actually realized by it alone should be taken note of; whereas the respondent Corporation contended that rent realized by the tenant of the petitioner from its subtenant should be taken into account. It was also not stated that in relation to the different quarters the disputes were hardly of few thousand rupees. For example for the period 3rd. quarter 1988-89 the petitioner contended that the total rent realized by it is Rs. 3,11,913.50/- per month, the respondent Corporation contended the premises belonging to the petitioner fetches a rent of Rs. 3,71,116,24/- per month. The bulk of this dispute was, whereas a tenant of the petitioner, namely, Turner Morrison Investments Ltd. was paying a rent of Rs. 10,600/- per month to the petitioner it was realizing a rent of Rs. 61,700/- from its sub-tenants. It was also not stated that in addition to that respondent Corporation was claiming rent of Rs. 150/- per month on account of locked room, Rs. 550/- on account of servants' quarter, Rs. 350/- on account of car parking space, Rs. 100/- on account of lift spaces, which claims were rejected by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer after deducting such claims of the respondent Corporation made a mean in between excess over the rent paid by the sub-tenant and rent realized by it and held that the reasonable rent should be Rs. 3,34,670/- instead of the claim of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,11,913.50/- and the claim of the respondent Corporation amounting to Rs. 3, 71,116.24/-. 11. The fact remains that after the apportionment was made the annual valuation of the property in question stood reduced to Rs. 30,52,270/- from the previous valuation of Rs. 48,35,160/- as mentioned above. Subsequently the annual valuation was raised upon the fact that the property earned higher rent. The petitioner, however, contends that despite such higher rent being earned, the valuation cannot be altered before expiry of six years. 12. The subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.7 of 2002, (hereinafter referred to as "the fourth petition"), is the valuation fixed by the Hearing Officer on 9th August, 2001. The petitioner, however, contends that despite such higher rent being earned, the valuation cannot be altered before expiry of six years. 12. The subject matter of challenge in W.P. No.7 of 2002, (hereinafter referred to as "the fourth petition"), is the valuation fixed by the Hearing Officer on 9th August, 2001. By a notice dated 20th June, 2001 the petitioner had been informed that the respondent Corporation is proposing to fix annual value of the said premises at Rs. 1,08,08,500/- with effect from 4th quarter 1999-2000 and if the petitioner seeks to object such proposed valuation he could file an objection to the proposed valuation and if such an objection is filed, the same would be heard by the Hearing Officer XII on Thursday, 9th August, 2001 at 10.30 hours. It was stated in the notice that the revised annual valuation has been assessed due to the ground as stated in item "vi" overleaf. Item "vi" overleaf is revaluation of the premises on estimated annual rent less statutory allowance for repairs or revaluation of the premises due to rise of market value of the land or building. The petitioner filed an objection to the proposed revaluation. The same was heard on 9th August, 2001. The annual value was, thereupon, raised to Rs. 90,00,000/-. The principal ground of challenge is that the building is 50 years old and there has been no addition or alteration thereto for the last 50 years or more and on top of that a portion of the premises, as indicated above, has been sold out. Accordingly, it is the case of petitioner, there cannot be any rise of market value of the said premises. 13. In the fourth petition it has not been stated that before the Hearing Officer it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when a general revaluation is effected, as was done in the instant case, normally a 20% increase is made but having regard to the fact 20% increase is illogical and that only 5% increase should be made and accordingly accepting such submission the revised valuation was fixed at Rs. 90,00,000/- an increase of little more than 5% than the last valuation of Rs. 85,25,070/-. 90,00,000/- an increase of little more than 5% than the last valuation of Rs. 85,25,070/-. From the objection docket, which records the order, it appears that the authorised representative of the petitioner Sri P.K. Dey, Advocate, made such submission and to his satisfaction the same was accepted by the Hearing Officer. 14. For the above suppressions alone these petitions are liable to dismiss. However, since a few questions of law have been raised, the same requires an answer. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that since by reason of the provisions contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the petitioner at the relevant time could only be fixed on the basis of actual rent received by the petitioner and not on the basis of the rent the tenant of the petitioner was realizing from its sub-tenants. 15. Section 168(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 was as under :- "168(1). For the purpose of assessment to the consolidated rate the annual value of any land or building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land or building might at the time of assessment be reasonably expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance often per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent: Provided that in respect of any land or building the rent of which has been fixed under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 or the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (West Ben. Act XVII of 1950, West Ben. Act XII of 1956) the annual value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the rent so fixed." 16. In contradiction thereto section 174(1) of the said Act is as follows: "174(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (West Ben. Act XVII of 1950, West Ben. Act XII of 1956) the annual value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the rent so fixed." 16. In contradiction thereto section 174(1) of the said Act is as follows: "174(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (West Ben. Act XII of 1956) or in any other law for the time being in force, for the purpose of assessment to the consolidated rate, the annual value of any land for building shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent including service charges, if any, at which such land for building might at the time of assessment be reasonably expected to let from year to year, less an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain such land or building in a state to command such gross rent." (Provisos thereto, which are not germane, have not been set out.). 17. Therefore, while the legislative intent in the 1951 Act was the rent as realized by the landlord from his tenant, when such tenancy is governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, shall be taken note of while assessing the gross annual rent at which the premises is reasonably expected to let; the legislative intent in the said Act is that it does not matter what rent the landlord is realizing from his tenant but to ascertain the rent at which the premises may be let out. 18. Section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 was as follows: "The annual value of land, and the annual value of any building erected for letting purposes or ordinarily let, shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which the land of building might at the time of assessment reasonably be expected to let from year to year, less, in the case of a building, an allowance of ten per cent for the cost of repairs and for all other expenses necessary to maintain the building in a state to command such gross rent." 19. In the Corporation of Calcutta vs. Smt. Padma Debi and Ors., reported in (1962)3 S.C.R.49, the Calcutta Corporation in fixing the annual valuation of the premises in question under section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 took Rs. In the Corporation of Calcutta vs. Smt. Padma Debi and Ors., reported in (1962)3 S.C.R.49, the Calcutta Corporation in fixing the annual valuation of the premises in question under section 127 (a) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 took Rs. 1,450/- as the monthly rent at which the premises is reasonably expected to let from year to year at the time of assessment. The respondent filed objection to the said assessment. Meanwhile, under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1950, the standard rent of the said premises was fixed by the Rent Controller at Rs. 6328/- per month with effect from August, 1951. The question that cropped up for consideration by the Supreme Court was whether the Corporation had power to fix annual value at a figure higher than the standard rent so fixed by the Rent Controller. In answering the question the Supreme Court agreed to the following observations of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Secretary of State vs. Madras Municipality, reported in (1886) I.L.R. 10 Mad. 38 to the effect as follows: "The standard of value is certainly the value of the property to the owner which is to be measured, whether he occupies the property himself or lets it out to a tenant by the amount of rent per annuam it would be worth to a hypothetical tenant". The Supreme Court thereafter held that the value of the property to the owner is the standard in making the assessment and thereupon observed as follows:- "-The word 'reasonably' in the section throws further light on this interpretation. The word 'reasonably' is not capable of precise definition. 'Reasonable' signifies 'in accordance with reason'. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact. Whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. A bargain between a willing lessor and a willing lessee uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances may afford a guiding test of reasonableness. An inflated or deflated rate of rent based upon fraud, emergency, relationship, and such other considerations may take it out of the bounds of reasonableness. Equally it would be incongruous to consider fixation of rent beyond the limits fixed by penal legislation as reasonable. Under the Rent Control Act, the receipt of any rent higher than the standard rent fixed under the Act is made penal for the landlord. Equally it would be incongruous to consider fixation of rent beyond the limits fixed by penal legislation as reasonable. Under the Rent Control Act, the receipt of any rent higher than the standard rent fixed under the Act is made penal for the landlord. Section 3 of the said Act says that any amount in excess of the standard rent of any premises shall be irrecoverable notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Section 33 (a) thereof provides inter alia that 'whoever knowingly receives, whether directly or indirectly, any sum on account of the rent of any premises in excess of the standard rent' will be liable to certain penalties. 'Standard rent' has been defined in section 2 (10) (b) to mean that 'where the rent has been fixed under section 9, the rent so fixed, or at which it would have been fixed if application were made under the said section.' A combined reading of the said provisions leaves no room for doubt that a contract for rent at a rate higher than the standard rent is not only enforceable but also that the landlord would be committing an offence if he collected a rent above the rate of the standard rent. One may legitimately say under those circumstances that a landlord cannot reasonably be expected to let a building for a rent higher than the standard rent. A law of the land with its penal consequences cannot be ignored in ascertaining the reasonable expectations of a landlord in the matter of rent. In this view, the law of the land must necessarily be taken as one of the circumstances obtaining in the open market placing an upper limit on the rate of rent for which a building can reasonably be expected to let. It is said that section 127 (a) does not contemplate the actual rent received by a landlord but a hypothetical rent which he can reasonably be expected to receive if the building is let. So stated the proposition is unexceptionable. Hypothetical rent may be described as a rent which a landlord may reasonably be expected to get in the open market. But an open market cannot include a 'black market', a term euphemistically used to commercial transactions entered into between parties in defiance of law. In that situation, a statutory limitation of rent circumscribes the scope of the bargain in the market. But an open market cannot include a 'black market', a term euphemistically used to commercial transactions entered into between parties in defiance of law. In that situation, a statutory limitation of rent circumscribes the scope of the bargain in the market. In no circumstances the hypothetical rent can exceed that limit." In that case the Supreme Court also noted the basic difference in the English Law and the Indian Law on the subject and found that while the occupier is liable to pay rates and taxes under the English Law; the owner is liable to pay rates and taxes under the Indian Law and accordingly held that English Law is not applicable to Indian Law. It was submitted before the Supreme Court that the Rent Control Act itself permitted the landlord to get the standard rent raised by an amount equivalent to the increase in taxes, rates or cesses and, therefore, if the rate is raised, the landlord would be in a position to have the standard rent raised. The Supreme Court held that such a situation would lead to a vicious circle and would enable one to circumvent the provisions of the Rent Control Act, for though a tenant is not liable under an Act to pay a rent higher than the standard rent, by this process he would be compelled to pay a higher rent. The Supreme Court clarified that this increase is permissible when there is an increase in the rate and not in the basis of determining the liability. It was contended that the earlier Rent Act prohibited the Calcutta Corporation from making any assessment of rent higher than the rent fixed by the Rent Controller but the subsequent Rent Control Act did not make any such provision and accordingly it must be deemed that the Corporation acquired such power. It was contended that the earlier Rent Act prohibited the Calcutta Corporation from making any assessment of rent higher than the rent fixed by the Rent Controller but the subsequent Rent Control Act did not make any such provision and accordingly it must be deemed that the Corporation acquired such power. By noting the legislative history including the one contained in the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "On the other hand, the Legislature, which must be presumed to have had knowledge that the Calcutta Rent Act of 1920 would expire within three years from the commencement of the Municipal Act of 1923, and also have been aware that former Act contained such a prohibition, if it intended to remove any such prohibition during those three years or even thereafter, would have expressly made a provision to that effect in the Municipal Act, 1923. On the other hand, the phraseology of the section must have been designedly used wide enough to comprehend such a prohibition. Indeed, when the Act was repealed in 1951 by Act XXXIII of 1951, what was implicit in section 127 (a) was made explicit in the proviso to section 168(1) of that Act. We cannot, therefore, draw any implied prohibition from the story of the legislation." 20. The Supreme Court, thus, made it clear that if the legislature intended to empower the Corporation to determine the expected rental income of a property more than what has been fixed under the Rent Act, the legislature could do so but the legislature had not done so until making of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. 21. In Corporation of Calcutta vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in 1970(2) SCC 44 , the tenant though was paying rent of Rs. 2,800/-, was realizing much more than from its sub-tenants. The annual value of the property was, thus, increased to Rs. 62,761/-. Construing the provision of section 168(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Corporation of Calcutta vs. Sm. Padma Debi & Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of assessment of annual value standard rent payable by the tenant could be taken note of and that in determining the annual value the assessing authority was not concerned with the rent which the tenant may receive from his sub-tenant. 22. Padma Debi & Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of assessment of annual value standard rent payable by the tenant could be taken note of and that in determining the annual value the assessing authority was not concerned with the rent which the tenant may receive from his sub-tenant. 22. While enacting the said Act the legislature decided to do away with the standard rent to be fixed under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for the purpose of ascertaining the reasonable letting out value of the properties in question. In doing so, it is now not necessary what rent the landlord is getting. What is necessary is at what rent the property may be let out. If the property has, in fact, been out by a tenant at a rate higher than the rent he is paying to the landlord, then it can in no uncertain terms be said that the property is capable of being letting out at such rent. 23. It is possible and in many cases it must have had happened that before the said Act came into force a 'property had been let out to a tenant under a tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 but the tenant has sub-let the property at a much higher rate. In such a situation, if the new provisions of the said Act are applied, the tax liability of the landlord may become much higher than the income of the landlord. Being aware of such situation and to give appropriate relief to the landlord section 194 has been incorporated in the said Act, which is as follows: "194. Apportionment of liability for consolidated rate on land or building when the premises assessed are let or sublet.-(I) If the annual valuation of any land or building exceeds the amount calculated on the basis of the rent of such land or building payable to the person upon whom the consolidated rate on such land or building is leviable under section 193, such person shall be entitled to receive from his tenant the difference between the amount of the consolidated rate on such land or building and the amount which would he leviable if the consolidated rate on such land or building were calculated on the basis of the rent payable to him. (2) If the annual valuation of any land or building which is sublet exceeds the amount calculated on the basis of rent of such land or building payable to the tenant by his sub-tenant or to the sub-tenant by the person holding under him, the tenant or the sub-tenant shall be entitled to receive from his sub-tenant or the person holding under him, as the case may be, the difference between any sum recovered under this Act from such tenant or subtenant and the amount of consolidated rate on such land or building which would be leviable if the annual valuation of such land or building were calculated on the basis of rent payable to the tenant by his sub-tenant or the sub-tenant by the person holding under him." 24. From the copy of the judgment handed over to Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 5109 of 2000 [India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr.], it appears that the Supreme Court has already applied its mind to the provisions of section 174 of Act and has ascertained the legislative intent contained therein in the backdrop of the observations of the Supreme Court in the two judgments, referred to above. In that case the Appellate Tribunal held that for the purpose of ascertaining reasonable letting out value the rent, if fact, received by the landlord should be taken note of. The High Court held that the rent which the property is actually realising should be taken note of and accordingly remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded as follows: " Keeping in view the facts of the present appeal we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in remanding the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal for deciding on merits but was not justified to restrict the consideration only on the basis of rent being paid by the sub-tenant to the tenant for the purpose of determining the gross annual value. The Appellate Tribunal shall consider the appeals in the light of our judgment by keeping in mind all the circumstances including the rent actually received by the owner of the building and the rent being paid to the tenant by his sub-tenant. The Appellate Tribunal shall consider the appeals in the light of our judgment by keeping in mind all the circumstances including the rent actually received by the owner of the building and the rent being paid to the tenant by his sub-tenant. The Appellate Tribunal shall also keep in mind the peculiar circumstances of the case, if any, for determining the gross annual rent at which the building in controversy, at the time of assessment, is reasonably expected to let from year to year, less, the allowances and other considerations referred to in section 174 of the 1980 Act. If the annual valuation determined is more than the gross annual rent which the appellant is actually receiving from his tenant, the appellant shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount paid in terms of section 194 of the 1980 Act." 25. Though the said judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on 13th. February, 2002, in the instant case the Hearing Officer applied the principles of the said judgment and accordingly did not take into account the whole of the rent received by the tenant from the sub-tenants but took into account a portion thereof only. In view of what has been discussed above, it is now clear that if assessment is to be made in terms of the provisions of the said Act, the rent received by the landlord is not the sole criteria for ascertaining the reasonable letting out value of the property but an effort is required to be made for the purpose of ascertaining at what rent the property may be let out and if the property has been sub-let or under-let, the rent that is being paid by the occupier is also a very important criteria to be take note of for ascertaining the reasonable letting out value. 26. The next question that has been raised in these writ petitions is whereas for assessing reasonable letting out value of the sold out portion of the selfsame property the letting out value has been taken at Rs.6/- per sq. ft. per month but in case of upper floors the same has been assessed at Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month and accordingly the action is arbitrary. If the upper floors do receive rent from the occupiers at Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. ft. per month but in case of upper floors the same has been assessed at Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month and accordingly the action is arbitrary. If the upper floors do receive rent from the occupiers at Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month, it goes without saying that the upper floors can be reasonably let out at Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month, one cannot shut his eyes to the fact that the upper floors are, in fact, earning by way of rent Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. per month. As aforesaid, on facts it has been found that the property is earning much more than what has been fixed as the reasonable letting out value of the property in question. 27. The next contention of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation cannot alter the annual value frequently as the same can only be done after a gap of six years. Section 179 of the said Act given two directions. Firstly it says that the annual value of any land or building made prior to the coming into force of the said Act shall continue to be the annual value for the purpose of assessment of consolidated rate under the said Act, until a fresh annual valuation is made under the Act. Secondly it says that annual valuation made under the said Act, which includes the deemed annual value, shall remain in force for six years and may be revised thereafter. This is, however, subject to the other provisions contained in the said Act. Similarly, section 180 of the said Act given two directions. It firstly says that notwithstanding anything contained in section 179 of the said Act, the respondent Corporation may direct general revaluation, which means the Corporation may undertake general revaluation before the expiry of six years. In the form of the second direction it empowers the Municipal Commissioner to revise annual valuation of any land or building on the ground specified in sub-section (2) of the said section, one of which grounds says: "when it becomes necessary so to do for any other reason to be recorded in writing". In the form of the second direction it empowers the Municipal Commissioner to revise annual valuation of any land or building on the ground specified in sub-section (2) of the said section, one of which grounds says: "when it becomes necessary so to do for any other reason to be recorded in writing". After completion of revision of valuation either in terms of the second directive contended in section 179 or in terms of the first directive contained in section 180 of the said Act, the Municipal Commissioner is required to enter respective valuation in an assessment list and thereupon to give public notice thereof inviting the public to take inspection thereof and to take extracts there from. That appears to be the mandate of section 184 of the said Act. The said section also proceeds to say that a further public notice is required to be given to inform that the Municipal Commissioner shall decide such revised valuation on a date and at a time and place. If the revision proposes an increase or the assessment is being made for the first time, the Municipal Commissioner is also required to give notice thereof to the owner or to any lessee, sub-lessee or occupier of such land or building specifying the time and date when he will proceed to consider such revision. The owner or the person liable to pay the consolidated rate thereupon in term of section 186 of the said Act may submit an objection. If such an objection is submitted, the same shall be decided by the Hearing Officer. The objector, if dissatisfied with the determination of the objection, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. In the event no objection is given, the revaluation proposed, if objection is given the decision thereon by the Hearing Officer, if an appeal is preferred the decision of the Appellate Tribunal will render the valuation as revised final. Such final valuation shall be entered in the Municipal Assessment Book. Even thereafter in terms of section 192 of the said Act the Municipal Commissioner may amend the Municipal Assessment Book if an occasion arises, as mentioned in the said section. One of those occasions may entail increase or decrease of the annual value for adequate reasons. Such alteration may also be effected if assessment as recorded is a product of error. One of those occasions may entail increase or decrease of the annual value for adequate reasons. Such alteration may also be effected if assessment as recorded is a product of error. In order to do so Municipal Commissioner is required to give notice, to which an objection can be filed and if an objection is filed, the same is required to be decided by the gearing Officer and if the objector is dissatisfied, he can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore in terms of the provisions contained ill sub-section (2) of section 188 and sub-section (1) of section 192 of the said Act a revision of annual valuation may be effected by increasing or decreasing the amount of the existing annual value for adequate reasons at any time. If a property is let out and on the basis of actual rent realized from the tenant the annual value is assessed, but after the tenant has left the owner is unable to find a tenant agreeing to pay similar rent or gets a tenant who agrees to pay a lessor rent, if would not be proper to continue the annual valuation which had been fixed earlier. By making regulations the respondent Corporation has permitted such an owner to approach the Municipal Commissioner to decrease the annual value. The same principle would supply for increasing the annual value when after a tenant has left, the next tenant agrees to pay substantial higher rent. That appears to be legislative intent of the said Act. Although it does not appear that there is any obligation on the part of an owner to inform the Corporation in relation to increase in rent but section 181 of the said Act enables the Corporation to require the owner or the occupier to any land or building to furnish a return in order to enable the Corporation to determine the annual value of any land or building. This shows that the Corporation is entitle to know at all times the factors for determining the annual value of any land or building. The principal factor being the reasonable letting out value, if there has been an increase in the actual letting out value, under section 180 as well as under section 192 of the said Act the Corporation may take steps to increase the annual value this exactly what had happened in the instant case. The principal factor being the reasonable letting out value, if there has been an increase in the actual letting out value, under section 180 as well as under section 192 of the said Act the Corporation may take steps to increase the annual value this exactly what had happened in the instant case. The valuation at Rs. 48,35,160/- was reduced to Rs. 30,52,270/- since the petitioner started earning less for it sold a portion of the property. The valuation, which was fixed at Rs. 30,52,270/-, rose to Rs. 85,25,070/- for, in fact, there was increase in realization of rent from the occupiers of the said premises. 28. There is, however, a substantial contention on the part of the petitioner. Section 188 of the said Act is as follows:- "188. Hearing of objections.-(l) Objections filed under section 186 shall be entered in a register maintained for the purpose in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) On that date, time and place specified under sub-section(3) or sub-section(4) of section 184 and after giving the person filing the objections and opportunity of being heard, either in person or through an authorised agent, the officer appointed under section 187 shall determine the objections. (3) When', an objection has been determined, the order in this behalf shall be recorded in the register maintained under sub-section (1) with the date and a copy of the order shall be supplied within thirty days thereof to the person filing the objection in such form and manner as may be prescribed. (4) The procedure for hearing and disposal of objections shall be such as may be prescribed. (5) The valuation fixed after determination of objection under this section shall take effect from the quarter in which such valuation would have taken effect and shall continue to remain in force during the period such valuation would have remained in force, had no objection been filed." Section 188 of the Act, therefore, directs, inter alia, as follows: (a) The Hearing Officer to decide objections to the valuation proposed or proposed to be revised; (b) The Hearing Office to record order determining such objections in the register, which has been maintained for the propose of entering objections: and (c) To supply a copy of the order to the person filing the objection. 29. 29. Proviso to sub-section (5) of section 189 permits presentation of an appeal to the Tribunal within 45 days from the date of service of a copy of the order under section 188 of the said Act and requires that such an appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the said order. In terms of the mandate contained in sub-section (3) of section 188 of the said Act the form of the copy of the order has been prescribed, which is as follows: "THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Assessment Department The ................................................................... Re ........................................................................... Dear Sir/Madam The following order has been passed by the Municipal Commissioner the officer hearing the objection .................. on ................ under section 188(2)/192(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 on the objection preferred in respect of the assessment of the above premises with effect from ................. quarter of 19................. Copy of the order: Valuation confirmed at Rs. reduced to ...................... Yours faithfully. Assistant Assessor. Quarterly rate including H.B. Tax, but excluding non-residential commercial surcharge on the decided valuation as noted overleaf is Rs. Please note that no appeal under section 189 (6) shall be entertained unless the consolidated rate as noted above including arrear in the case of increase in the quarterly rates is deposited and the appeal shall abate unless such consolidated rate is continued to be deposited till the appeal is finally disposed of. By Regd. Pust To ……………… ………………. ………………. 30. In practice copy of the order is neither annexed to the prescribed form, nor the same is appended below the expression "copy of the order" and above the expression 'valuation confirmed at Rs........... reduced to...........". What is done is either it is written valuation confirmed at Rs.............. or valuation reduced to Rs.......... This form has been prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. The Rule 9 is as follows:- "9. Objections. reduced to...........". What is done is either it is written valuation confirmed at Rs.............. or valuation reduced to Rs.......... This form has been prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. The Rule 9 is as follows:- "9. Objections. - (1) Objections filed under section 186 or under sub-section (2) of section 192 shall be entered in register maintained in Form G. (2) When an objection is determined and order is passed, the Municipal Commissioner shall cause to be given or tendered or sent by hand or under registered post a copy of such order to the person filing the objection in Form H. (3) the procedure for hearing and disposal of an objection filed under section 186 shall be as follows:- (a) The objection in writing made under section 186 together with returns furnished under section 181 and/or under section 182 shall be placed before the officer at the time of hearing of objection under section 188 along with a sheet of paper on which orders and queries are to be noted. (b) Queries and observations made and records, returns and explanations called for by the officer under sub-section (3) of section 187 together with the order passed under sub-section (2) of section 188 shall be recorded by him on the sheet. The date on which such order is passed shall also be recorded on the sheet. (c) The officer may, at the time of hearing the objection, call upon the person appearing before him at the hearing to file a written statement, supported by a duly sworn in affidavit, if necessary, giving particulars of his submission in support of the disputes raised. (d) The officer hearing the objection under section 188 may, for reasonable cause, adjourn the hearing and fix a date for further hearing and while fixing the date may direct a fresh enquiry to be made. (e) While determining the objection, the officer hearing the objection shall specifically note the reasonable rent determined by him in respect of every individual occupier who uses his portion for commercial or non-residential purpose. (f) The order passed shall be read out to the person appearing at the hearing who shall put his signature with date on the sheet in proof of his presence and knowledge of the order passed." 31. (f) The order passed shall be read out to the person appearing at the hearing who shall put his signature with date on the sheet in proof of his presence and knowledge of the order passed." 31. The said Rules have been made by the delegated legislature in exercise of power conferred by section 170 of the said Act. Though in Form "G" prescribed for entering objections there is a column to enter the order of the Hearing Officer on the objections, but the rule does not direct that the order should be entered, as is the mandate of section 188(3) of the Act. Similarly, whereas the legislative direction upon the Hearing Officer is to record the order determining the objection in such register, the delegated legislature has purported to permit the Hearing Officer to record the order determining the objection in such register, the delegated legislature has purported to permit the Hearing Officer to record his order determining such objection in loose sheet of paper. Then again, whereas the legislative mandate contained in sub-section (3) of section 188 of the said Act is to supply a copy of the order of the Hearing Officer determining the objections, the form has been prescribed in such a manner that the order of the Hearing Officer on determining the objections is not to be supplied but his decision whether the valuation has been confirmed or reduced is to be communicated. This is not only improper but is also contrary to the statutory mandate. A reading of section 188(3) and proviso to section 189(5) makes it clear that the objector as well as the Tribunal should be made known as to why the objection has been rejected or partly rejected. That appears to be the legislative intent. A quasi-judicial authority, as the Hearing Officer, is required to inform the party to be affected by his decision the reasons therefor and not only the extent of affectation. 32. That appears to be the legislative intent. A quasi-judicial authority, as the Hearing Officer, is required to inform the party to be affected by his decision the reasons therefor and not only the extent of affectation. 32. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petitions on merits for the reasons indicated above, I direct the delegated legislature to forthwith but not later than three months from the date of service of a copy of this order to suitably amend Rule 9 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 in the light of the legislative mandate contained in section 188 of the said Act and also to compel recording of the order of the Hearing officer on the objections in the register maintained for entering objections filed under section 186 of the said Act. The delegated legislature is directed also to amend the form of the copy of the order suitably so that the decision of the Hearing Officer on the objection is communicated to the person filing objection, which is the mandate of the legislature. 33. Until such time the delegated legislature discharges its obligations in terms of the above directions, the respondent Corporation is directed to supply a copy of the order of the Hearing Officer to the person filing objection either annexing the same along with the communication to be made in terms of the form set out above or by appending the same in the form itself. This disposed of the writ petitions. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 34. Urgent xerox certified copy of the judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates appearing for the parties as quickly as possible. 35. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation shall be entitled to get copies of any of the pleadings filed in any of the writ petitions. 36. All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this order on the usual undertaking. Writ petition disposed of.