9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. B.Sen, P. K. Ghose for P. K. Bose, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. -This is an appeal pursuant to special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta varying the order of the arbitrator in regard to compensation for compulsory requisitioning of the premises in dispute. The appellant before us is the owner of the premises in dispute which at the relevant time consisted of four storeys, the ground floor and three upper floors and the respondent is the State of West Bengal which was the opposite party before the arbitrator. This building (No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue) was constructed before July 28, 1940, and was taken on a regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date . On remand the appellant who had previously claimed ₹ 3,998 as compensation plus ₹ 125 for working and maintaining the lift, increased his demand to ₹ 7,700 per mensem exclusive of municipal taxes, and also ₹ 125 for the use of the lift. He stated in his application that the amount previously claimed by him was unduly low and was made through mistake and miscalculation and misconception of things and principle and moreover it was due to the want of proper information at the time . After the remand he examined further evidence and the respondent also examined some witnesses. The new arbitrator Mr. J. C. Mazumdar held that the matter must be decided according to the rent prevailing in the locality in 1943 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same (Vide 66 I.A. 104) . Against this judgment the appellant has brought this appeal by special leave. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the method adopted by the High Court for arriving at the figure of compensation was erroneous because it proceeded on wrong principles in that it took averages of rent paid for the premises No. 5 Chittaranjan Avenue and for No. 22 Chittaranjan Avenue and ignored the expert opinion of witness U. P. Malik according to which the rent for ground floor should have been ₹ 23 per hundred sq. ft. and ₹ 17-8 per hundred sq. ft. for other floors and also that the potentialities of the building had not been taken into consideration. The High Court found that premises No. 22 Chittara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the amount of compensation had ignored the potential value of the premises in dispute in an important commercial locality which the arbitrator Mr. J. C. Mazumdar had evaluated at 10% of the amount determined by him. This contention is well founded. The High Court disallowed this award of 10% without assigning any reason. It said:- and although we are not wholly accepting his additional award of 10% on account of so called potentialities, etc., including the lift, we 'are inclined to assess this further compensation on account of the lift at ₹ 77 per month The principles on which compensation is to be ascertained under the provisions of s. 19 of the Defence of India Act are the same as those given in s. 23(1) of' the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... materials as are available to him and without indulging in feats of the imagination. Another objection taken was in regard to compensation for the lift. The High Court awarded ₹ 77 but on what basis it is not clear. In our opinion this claim of ₹ 125 per mensem was not excessive considering that two departments of the Government were using this lift, which is clear from the fact that an overhead bridge had been constructed for going from premises No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue to the other building which the Government had also requisitioned. This will work out to ₹ 3,175. In the circumstances ₹ 3,200 per mensem would be a fair compensation and we would therefore enhance the compensation to that figure and the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
