JUDGMENT : Debi Prosad Dey, J. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Municipal Assessment Appeal No.1567 of 2012 in respect of flat No.1B, First floor, 47/1H Hazra Road, Kolkata – 700019 whereby and whereunder the Municipal Assessment Tribunal of Kolkata Municipal Corporation has fixed the reasonable rent to be fetched from such premises at the rate of Rs.1.20/- per square feet per month reversing the decision of the hearing officer who had fixed reasonable rent to be fetched from such premises to the tune of Rs.2.00/- per square feet. 2. Learned Advocates of both the parties are present. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, contended that the Municipal Assessment Tribunal has failed to consider the actual reasonable rent of the premises and virtually the Municipal Assessment Tribunal did not consider the annual valuation of the flats situated nearby. Learned Advocate Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation further contended that the Kolkata Assessment Tribunal has come to such erroneous finding considering the judgment of MAA 436 of 2006 though the valuation was actually made by the Assessment Tribunal in the year 2014. 4. It is thus submitted that the order of Kolkata Municipal Tribunal ought to be set aside and the matter may be sent back on remand for proper valuation/assessment of the premises under reference. 5. Learned Advocate for the opposite party contended that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has had no locus standi to challenge the decision of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal since the statute has only provided such relief to the aggrieved rate payers. 6. Secondly learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has further contended that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is barred by the Law of Limitation. In support of his contention learned Advocate for the opposite party referred a decision reported in 2004(2) CHN 465 (Parimal Kr. Das & ors. Vs. Prasun Kr. Das). 6. Secondly learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has further contended that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is barred by the Law of Limitation. In support of his contention learned Advocate for the opposite party referred a decision reported in 2004(2) CHN 465 (Parimal Kr. Das & ors. Vs. Prasun Kr. Das). Learned Advocate for the opposite party further contended that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation did not produce any evidence in the Assessment Tribunal and the corporation has also failed to produce any sort of document before this Court in order to show that the decision of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal is not correct or is required to be scrutinized on the strength of such proposed evidences/materials produced by the petitioner corporation. 7. A co-ordinate bench of this Court has specifically observed in the decision referred to herein above (Parimal Kr. Das Vs. Prasun Kr. Das) that there is no prescribed period of limitation in respect of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and since the lapse of time in filing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Hon’ble Court has been satisfactorily explained, the delay in filing the above application, if there be any is condoned. 8. It is well settled principle of law that there is no period of limitation in respect of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has also been decided that if there is any time limit with regard to any parallel proceeding, such time limit may be taken into account in considering the delay in filing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the case under reference the petitioner has specifically explained the delay in filing such application in paragraph 20 of the petition. The delay in filing such application under article 227 of the Constitution of India may safely be condoned in view of satisfactory explanations to that effect as contained in para 20 of the petition. 10. The hearing officer assessed the annual valuation of the premises under reference at Rs.23210/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the opposite party actually preferred an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and the Municipal Assessment Tribunal after considering two Municipal Assessment Appeal being no. 10. The hearing officer assessed the annual valuation of the premises under reference at Rs.23210/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the opposite party actually preferred an appeal before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and the Municipal Assessment Tribunal after considering two Municipal Assessment Appeal being no. MAA 288 of 2000 and MAA 436 of 2006 decided the annual valuation of the premises under reference to the tune of Rs.7960/-. 11. There is nothing in the order of Municipal Assessment Tribunal to show that the opposite party i.e. Kolkata Municipal Corporation submitted/produced sufficient materials before the Assessment Tribunal so as to hold that the annual valuation would have been much higher than what has been assessed by Municipal Assessment Tribunal. 12. Municipal Assessment Tribunal consists of a judicial member as well as one technical member. Both the members were unanimous and thus decided the annual valuation of the premises under reference on the basis of the materials on record. On careful scrutiny of the decision arrived at by the members of Municipal Assessment Tribunal, I do not find, any illegality in such order so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The application is thus rejected but without cost. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.