1. These three appeals have been preferred by one Akhoy Kumar Sur, who is said to be the owner of three bustee lands situate in Nos. 11, 12 and 43 Old Ballygunge 1st Lane, against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Sealdah, by which he dismissed the appellant's objection regarding the assessment of the bustee lands. The appeals are preferred to this Court under the provisions of Section 142, Clause (3), Calcutta Municipal Act (3 of 1923). The contention which has been put forward in, appeal before us is that the appellant is not the owner of the bustee, but that the real owners of the bustee are certain tenants to whom he has sublet the premises in question. As they pay very small rents to him the result of the assessment in these cases has been that he (the appellant) has to pay more to the Corporation by way of assessment than he gets from his tenants. It seems however that in no stage of the proceedings before this the appellant in these three appeals ever discriminated between the position of the owner of a bustee and the owner of the land in which the bustee is situate. On the other hand he admitted in his deposition on commission that he was the malik of the bustee lands of Nos. 11, 12 and 43, Old Ballygunge 1st Lane. He nowhere said that some other person is the owner of the bustee as distinguished from the owner of the bustee lands. There is really no case of hardship or prejudice if we look to the provisions of Section 159, Clause (2), Calcutta Municipal Act, which distinctly provided that
whenever the consolidated rate is leviable upon a bustee the owner of the land contained within such bustee may recover from the owner of each hut standing thereon one half of the consolidated rate payable in respect of the land on which the hut stands, and (ii) the entire consolidated rate payable in respect of the hut.
2. The Calcutta Municipal Act does not really recognize the existence of a middle man between the owner of the lands in which the bustee is situate and the owners of huts in the bustee. In these circumstances it seems to us that there is no real substance in the objection which has been taken in these three appeals. The result accordingly is that the appeals fail and must be dismissed. Having regard however to all the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.