022-NLR-NLR-V-22-JAYAWARDENE-v.-THE-MUNICIPAL-COUNCIL-OF-COLOMBO.pdf
( 89 )
Present: De Sampayo J. and Dias A.J.1920.
JAYAWARDENE v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILOF COLOMBO.
374—D. C. Colombo, 52,902.
Assessment—Annual value—Municipal Councils Ordinance—Land
adjoining sea—Sale of sea sand—No other income.
The owner of a piece of land adjoining the sea allowed personsto remove the sea sand that collected on the seaboach on paymentof a certain rate. There was no other income derived from the land.
Held, that the annual value was the profit made by the owner inconnection with the sale and removal of the sea sand after makingallowance for expenses and other charges, and that it was wrongto assess the property on the footing that it produced no incomewhatever.
rJ^HE facts appear from the judgment.
A. Si. V. Jayawardene, for the appellant.
Keuneman, for the respondent.
1 (1892) 3 Ch. Div. 201.2 (1888) 37 Oh. Div. 234.
( )1920. May 5,1920. Db Sampayo J.—
Jayawardene This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the Municipal^ounc^ Colombo to reduce the amount of assessment levied byof Colombo the Council on a property belonging to him. The property is a pieceof land at Colpetty adjoining the seashore. It appears the valueof the property assessed consists in the sale of sea sand colleotedon thepremises and removed bypersons who pay a certain rate to the owner.This business is conducted under a license issued by the GovernmentAgent, and renewed from month to month. The Council originallyassessed the premises at Rs. 2,700, but on an objection taken bythe plaintiff it was reduced to Rs. 1,800. The plaintiff, being stilldissatisfied, has brought this action to reduce theassessment to Rs. 12a year, on the footing that the premises produced no incoipe what-ever, and that the utmost they are liable to be assessed at under theOrdinance is*the nominal amount of Rs. 12, at the rate of Re. 1 permonth. The District Judge took evidence as to the profits made bytheplaintiff in connection with the sale andremovalof seasand,andafter makingallowanceforexpensesand other charges, he hasassessedthe annual value at Rs. 1,440. The plaintiff has appealed from thisjudgment. It is col^waded that the District Judge went upon awrong basis. But I am-unable to agree with this contention. Theannual value is defined in the Municipal Councils Ordinance as theannual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, takingone year with another year, to pay for any house, building land,or tenement. What the District Judge in this case has practicallydone is that he has taken into consideration what profit a hypotheticaltenant could make, and accordingly what he would be prepared topay to the landlord for any lease of the premises. That, I think,is the right question to put. It is no doubt true that the profitis not made out of the land in the ordinary sense, but,nevertheless, the character of the land and its situation wouldinduce a possible tenant to pay a higher rent than he would ordinarilypay for a land situated, elsewhere. Mr. Jayawardene cited anIndian case, Secretary of State for India v. Karuna Kanta Ghowdhey.1That case was concerned with the question whether fees paid byholders of stalls at a fair can be said to constitute rent payable tothe landlord so as to be taken into calculation in the assessmentunder the Indian Act. The Indian Act and the circumstances ofthat case are entirely different from those with which we are con-cerned in this case, and I think; although, perhaps, the questionmight have been better stated in the issues, the District Judge cameto a right conclusion on the real question involved.
I would dismiss the appeal, with costs.
Dias A.J.—I agree.
1 35 Cal. 82.
Appeal dismissed.