Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DAILYLAW 943 (DEL)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. HARBANS LAL

2001-04-27

Manmohan Sarin

body2001
MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 6. 3. 1998 passed by the learned additional District Judge fixing the rateable value at Rs. 15,090, w. e. f 1. 12. 1988 in respect of flat bearing No-901, Sector-A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that the petitioners had issued a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act proposing a rateable value of Rs. 13,900 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1986. She submits that no objections were filed to the same and in the absence of any objection or documents, the proposed rateable value of Rs. 13,900. 00 w. e. f. 1. 4-1986 was maintained. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the respondent had approached the petitioner for rectification. ( 4 ) THE petitioner after considering the pleas of the respondent for rectification changed the date of rateable value from 1. 4. 1986 to 26. 12. 1986. Rateable value was effective, thus fixed at Rs. 13,900. 00 w. e. f. 26. 12. 1986. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioners simply in pursuance to the amendment to the delhi Rent Control Act 1988, applied the increased percentage of 10%. The Rateable value for the years 1988-89 onwards was liable to increase at Rs. 16,770. 00. ( 5 ) IT is noticed that the Additional District judge during the appeal proceedings has given the benefit to the respondent/assessee of reducing the sale price of the fiat by 10% to arrive at the cost of construction. It is not disputed before me that the rateable value had to be determined based on the market value of the land together with the cost of construction the Additional District Judge had simply attempted to eliminate the profit element of 10% to arrive at the cost of construction. This resulted in reduced rateable value of Rs. 15090. 00. at the rateable value of rs. 15,090. 00. In any case, even if the petitioner s computation of the rateable value at Rs-13,900. 00 was accepted and rental increase of 10% based on the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, was applied after 3 years, it would amount to rateable value of Rs. 15,290. 15090. 00. at the rateable value of rs. 15,090. 00. In any case, even if the petitioner s computation of the rateable value at Rs-13,900. 00 was accepted and rental increase of 10% based on the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, was applied after 3 years, it would amount to rateable value of Rs. 15,290. 00, this would result in a mere difference of Rs. 200/"" only from the rateable value as fixed by the impugned order. This is not a case calling for any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to urge that since the earlier assessment at rs. 13,900. 00 had not been challenged, the respondent could not assail the same for the subsequent assessment years In question. The submission is devoid of merit, it Each assessment year is a separate year and It is open for the petitioner to assail the rateable value even If not assailed for the previous year.