S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this case, rule was issued on 28-2-1992. The petitioner, Municipal corporation of Delhi (MCD) has been unrepresented ever since, in all subsequent hearings. Today, when the petition was called out from the regular list, too, there was no appearance on its behalf. ( 2 ) THE petition impugns an order of the Additional District Judge, allowing the appeal of the respondent assessee, for the year 1987-88. The assessing authority had disallowed 50% as deduction for the value of the land, on account of a condition in the lease. The appellate authority, by the impugned order restricted the disallowance to 25%. ( 3 ) THE assessee, in her counter affidavit, had relied on the pendancy of writ Petition No. 4124/1990, which related to an earlier period. She objected to the present petition. ( 4 ) WP 5124/1990 was disposed off by this court, with the following order, on 24-1-2003: "the petitioner corporation has impugned the order of the learned Additional district Judge dated 25-4-1990. The point in issue relates to the 25% deduction made by the learned Additional district Judge on account of the fact that the property is a lease hold property providing for payment of unearned increase. There is no doubt that for the first transfer there is no unearned increase chargeable but for the subsequent transfer 25% per unearned increase is chargeable. Thus it is apparent that the property cannot be equated to a free-hold property and taking into consideration the aforesaid restrictive covenant of the lease 25% deduction of the market value of the land has been taken into account. I find no infirmity with the aforesaid deduction made by the Additional District judge in view of the restrictive covenant in the lease even though it operates after first transfer. Even for the first transfer permission is required to be taken. Dismissed. Sd sanjay Kishan Kaul, J" ( 5 ) IT is quite evident that the present case is no different from the facts of the above petition; the MCD is the petitioner, and the respondent, the same assessee. In view of these, and having regard to the facts, I see no reason to differ from the view taken in WP 4124/1990. Accordingly, this petition too has to meet the same fate; it is dismissed.