D. Chatterjee, J.
1. In this case a certain holding was to be re-valued on the expiry of 6 years from the last valuation. The Chairman of the Calcutta Municipality gave a notice under Section 158 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, and the ground upon which the re-valuation was proposed to be made was that the valuation should be on the cost of construction and value of land instead of on the rental value, the premises being now occupied by the owner. The Chairman made a certain valuation, that is to say, fixed a certain value upon which the assessment was to be made. Then under Section 160, a notice of objection was given by the opposite party and the opposite party was given a notice by the Chairman to be present with his evidence to be heard at a certain date before the Deputy Chairman. On the date so fixed, the Deputy Chairman made a valuation, accepting the principle for which the objector contended, that is, upon rental value.
2. Against this, there was an appeal to the Small Cause Court and the learned Judge has held that the notice under Section 158 was not good and that, therefore, the increased valuation must be cancelled.
3. The Corporation has moved this Court for revising the said order of the Small Cause Court, and it is contended on behalf of the Corporation that the learned Judge's view of the law is wrong in that the Calcutta Municipal Act does not contain any provision forgiving a further notice after an objection has been decided.
4. We find that Section 158 provides for a notice. Upon that notice, a valuation is made and objections are then taken under Section 160. After the decision of objections under Section 160, any person dissatisfied with the order passed on his objection may appeal to the Court of Small Causes. The law does not contain any provision for a fresh notice, and this is as it should be; because the object of a notice is to make the party intended to be assessed acquainted with the action that the Municipality is going to take in respect of his holding: and when the Municipality has once given him notice and he has appeared and taken objections and the objections have been decided, no further notice is necessary. His only course is to appeal to the Small Cause Court as provided by Section 162 of the Act. We think, therefore, that the notice under Section 158 in this case was not defective and that the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court must try the case in due course of law.
5. Another objection was taken before us that the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court was wrong in holding that this case came within Clause (c) of Section 152, so that the present assessment was made within time. We think that the contention of the learned Vakil for the opposite party in this case is not sound. In this case the valuation was made in August 1909; and upon objection, and appeal to the Small Canse Court, it was ultimately reduced in 1910. Therefore, the valuation, as originally made, was cancelled and that is sufficient to let in the provisions of Section 152 (c).
6. In this view of the case, we make the Rule absolute and direct that the learned Judge in the Small Cause Court should try the case on the merits in due course of law after considering such evidence as may be adduced by the parties.
7. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs.
8. I agree.