Holding

The Supreme Court held that the principle from Dr. Balbir Singh's case is binding and must be applied in determining rateable value, and the High Court's decision was set aside.

Summary

The appellant challenged the assessment of the rateable value of his property for property tax, alleging that the Assessing Officer had ignored the Supreme Court's principle from Dr. Balbir Singh's case that the rateable value cannot exceed the standard rent and must be determined by reference to rents of similarly situated older premises. The Delhi High Court set aside the Additional District Judge’s order and restored the Assessing Officer’s assessment, holding that the Supreme Court principle was inapplicable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the Balbir Singh principle, emphasizing that the law laid down by the Court cannot be brushed aside on the ground of statutory non‑conformity. It reiterated that the rateable value is the rent a hypothetical tenant would reasonably pay, subject to the upper limit of the standard rent, and that the assessing authority must apply this principle to avoid irrational disparity. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments set aside, and the matter remitted to the Assessing Officer to determine the rateable value in accordance with the Balbir Singh principles.

Issues considered

The applicability of the principle laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh's case regarding the determination of rateable value under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Supreme Court's principle was not applicable to the assessment.
Whether the assessing authority must consider parity with older premises and the standard rent as an upper limit.

Legislation cited

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. Section 116(1), s. Section 126, s. Section 169
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. Section 6(1), s. Section 9(4)

Subjects

property taxrateable valuestandard rentassessmentmunicipal corporationDelhi Municipal Corporation ActDelhi Rent Control ActSupreme Court precedentparity principle

Judgment

LT. COL. P.R. CHAUDHARY (RETD.) ETC. A
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.

APRIL 26, 2000

[D.P. WADHWAAND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] B

Municipalities :

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957/Delhi Rent Contrvl Act, 1958:

Pmperty Tax-Assessment of-Rateable value-Dete1mination of-Prin- c
ciple laid down by Supreme Cou11 in D1: Balbir Singh 's case-Rateable value
of property not to exceed standard rent-Assessment without following the
above principle-Upheld by High Cow1-Validity of-Held, if the principle
laid down by the Supreme Cow1 in D1: Balbir Singh's case are not followed,
: there would be wide disparity between rateable value of similarly situated old
premises and new premises which would be irrational, illogical and unfair- D
Law as interpreted by Supreme Cou/1 cannot be brushed aside on the ground
that it is not in confonnity with the statut01y provisions-Matter remitted to
Assessing Officerforfresh assessment in accordance with the principles laid
down in Dr. Balbir Singh' s case.
E
Constitution oflndia-A11icle 141-Law laid down by Supreme Court of
India-Not to be brushed aside on the gmund that it does not conform to
statut01y provisions.

The issue involved in the present appeals was regarding determina-
tion of rateable value of property for the purpose of property tax. In Dr. F
Balbir Singh's case, this Court, to prevent disparity in reteable values of
similarly situated old premises and new premises, laid down the principle
that the rateable value of the property cannot exceed the standard rent.
However, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment
order without taking into consideration the above principle. Consequently,
the reteable value adopted for the appellant's property was much higher G
than those in the neighbourhood. On appeal, Additional District Judge, set
aside the assessment order holding that the principle laid down in Dr.
Balbir Singh' s case was ignored. However, High Court, while allowing the
writ petition of respondent-Corporation, restored the order of Assessing
Officer holding that the principle laid down in Dr. Balbi1· Singh's case was H
607

.
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 SF.R.
A not applicable. Hence the present appeals. ·~4'
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1. High Court was not justified in allowing the writ peti-
tion of respondent-Corporation holding that the principles laid down by
B this Court in Dr. Balbir Singh' s case were not applicable.

1.2. Law as interpreted by this Court cannot be brushed aside by saying
that it is not in conformity with the statutory provisions. Law laid by this
Court is explicit and admits of no doubt. For the purpose of arriving at the
rateable value, the basic principle is that the annual rent which the owner
c of the premises may reasonably expect to get if the premises were let out to
a hypothetical tenant. It would depend on the size, situation, locality and
condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein. All these and
other relevant factors would have to be followed in determining the rate- ....
)("
able value. That, however, cannot be in excess of the standard rent which
D would be the upper limit. But then considering the run away prices of land
and building materials, if the standard rent were to be the measure of reteable
value, there would be a huge disparity between rateable value of old premises
and those recently constructed though they may be similar and situated in
the same or even adjoining locality. Considering the same and similar serv-
ices which are provided by the local authority, if there is vast a disparity }.;._
E between the reteable value of the old premised and the new premises that
would be wholly illogical and irrational. [616-E-G]

Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and 0th-
ers., [1985) 2 SCR 439, relied on.
F 1.3. The High Court was wrong in its reasoning that the Municipal .........
Corporation of Delhi has no machinery, if required, to follow the princi-
pies laid down by this Court. No two premises can be similar. In all revenue
matters, there is no adversary system. Assessment records of the rateable ,
value of the premises in the locality are certainly available in the records of '·
G the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It has a field staff on the reports of
which notices for enhancement of the rateable value are issued. Assessing
authority hears the objections to the fixation of rateable value and act in
quasi-judicial capacity. Its orders are appealable. It cannot act it an arbi-
trary fashion ignoring principles of law laid down by this Court, nor can it
·--
plead that it has no means. [617-C]
H

)._
L.T. COL. P.R. CHAUDHARY v. M.C.D. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 609
1.4. Even notice for enhancement of rateable value has to be based A
on reasons which must exist on record and the owner is entitled to be
apprised of those reasons. [617-E]

1.5. The instant matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for arriv~
ing at the rateable value in accordance with the principle laid down by this
Court in Dr. Balbir Singh's case. (617-F] B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4104of1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.7.97 of the Delhi High Court
in W.P.(C) No. 1414 of 1992.
c
WITH

Civil Appeal No. 4105 of 1998.

Shanti Bhushan, B. Sen, Rana Mukherjee, Ms. S. Mukherjee, Goodwill
Indeevar, Bharat Bhushan, B.B. Jain, Sudhir Nandrajog, Mrs. Arnita Gupta, D
(Ms. Madhu Tewatia), Adv. for Ranbir Singh Yadav for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. WADHWA, J. Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 1998 is
aggrieved by judgment dated July 7, 1997 of the Division Bench of Delhi E
High Court dismissing his writ petition wherein he had sought setting aside
the order of assessment dated March 12, 1991 assessing the rateable value
of his property for the purpose of property tax under Section 116 1 of the Delhi
MUnicipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the "Act"). The property of the
F
-- * I. 116. Detennination of rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property taxes.
- (1) The rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes shall be the annual
rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year
less -
(a) a sum equal to ten per cent of the said annual rent which shall be in lieu of all allowances
for costs of repairs an<l insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the
land or building in a state to command that rent, and
(b) the water tax or the scavenging tax or both, if the rent is inclusive of either or both of
G
the said taxes :
Provided that if the rent is inclusive of charges for water supplied by measurement, then,
for the purpose of this section the rent shall be treated as inclusive of water tax on rateable
value and the deauction of the water tax shall be made as provided therein :
Provided further that in respect of any land or building the standard rent of which has
been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952), the rateable value
thereof shall not exceed that annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A appellant comprised of his house constructed on a plot of land bearing No.
11-1787 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, measuring 311 Sq. yards. The writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court relying on its earlier judgment in
the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
decided by the same Division Bench on May 29, 1997. Civil Appeal No. 4105
of 1998 is against that judgment of the High Comt. It would, therefore, be
B appropriate to refer to the facts in the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi.

The appellant Ravish Chander Rastogi is the owner of the property
bearing No. 55, Anand Lok, New Delhi. He was served with a notice dated
March 20, 1986 under Section 126 of the Act proposing to enhance rateable
value for the purpose of property tax from existing Rs. 1280 to Rs. 1,79,000
c with effect from April 1, 1985. The reason for increase in the proposed
rateable value was that the appellant had made new construction. Appellant
filed his objections to the proposed rateable value. The assessing officer
proceeded to assess the rateable value on the basis that the property was in
the self-occupation of the appellant and rateable value, therefore, had to be
D determined under Section 6(1) 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short
the 'Rent Act'). For this two components are necessary: (1) market value of
the land on the date of commencement of construction and (2) reasonable cost
of construction. The assessing officer arrived at the market value of the plot,
[&planation. - The expression "water tax" and "scavenging tax" shall ·mean such taxes of that
nature as may be levied by an appropriate authority] (inserted by Act No. 67 of 1993 - w.e.f.
E 1.10.1993)
(2) The rateable value of any land which is not built upon but is capable of being built upon
and of any land on which a building is in process of erection shall be fixed at five per cent of
the estimated capital value of such land.
(3) All plant and machinery contained or situate in or upon any land or building and belonging
to any of the classes specified from time to time by public notice by the Commissioner with
the approval of the Standing Committee, shall be deemed to form part of such land or building
for the purpose of determining the rateable value thereof under sub-section (1) but save as
F aforesaid no account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery contained or situated
in or upon any such land or building.
2. Section 6(1) Subject to provisions of sub-section (2) 'standard rent' in relation to any
premises means -
(A) in the case of residential premises -
(2) where such premises have been let out at any time on or after the 2nd day of June,
G 1944, -
(b) in any other case, the rent calculated on the basis of seven and a-half per cent, per
annum of the aggregate amount of the reasonable cost of construction and the market
price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of
the construction:
Provided that where the rent so calculated exceeds twelve hundred rupees per
annum, this clause shall have effect as if for the words "seven and a-half per cent",
the words "eight and one-fourth per cent" had been substituted;
H (B) ················································
L.T. COL. P.R. CHAUDHARY v. M.C.D. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 611

which measured 812 sq. yards at Rs. 6,00,000 as on the date when building A
plans were sanctioned. He then estimated the reasonable cost of construction
at Rs. 12,98,000. Keeping in view the provisions of the Rent Act he arrived
at the aggregate of market value of the land and the cost of construction at
Rs. 18,98,000. Standard rent of the property at the rate of 8.25% was thus
Rs. 1,56,585. After 10% rebate for repairs, rateable value was arrived at Rs.
B
1,40,930. The effective date of fixation of rateable value was taken as March
17, 1986 when the appellant applied for the occupancy certificate of the
premises. Objections of the appellant that the principles laid by this Court
in Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others, 3
be taken into consideration while fixing the rateable value, were not consid-
ered relevant as it was observed that the observations of this Court were made C
in the context of the applicability of Section 9(4) 4 of the Rent Act and that
provisions ?f Section 9(4) would be applicable only where it was not possible
to determine the standard rent of the premises on the principles set froth in
Section 6 of the Rent Act. From the assessment order the appellant filed an
appeal before the District Judge under Section 169 of the Act, which came D
for decision before Mr. P.K. Dham, Additional District Judge, Delhi. Learned
Additional District Judge noticed three houses in the neighbourhood of the
appellant where rateable value of the property was fixed at Rs. 12,660 (house
No. 52), Rs. 21,660 (house No. 15) and Rs. 40,800 (house No. 6). According
to learned Additional District Judge principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir
Singh's case were fully applicable, which were ignored by the assessing E
officer. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter
back to the assessing authority to decide the case afresh in accordance with
law after giving opportunity to the appellant to be heard. Now, it was the
respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which felt aggrieved and sought
to challenge the order of the learned Additional District Judge by filing a writ p
petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Submission
of the appellant that principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir Singh's case
were applicable did not find favour with the High Comt when it observed:

3. (1985] 2 SCR 439
4. 9. Controller to fix standard rent, etc. - (1) to (3) .... G
(4) Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any
premises on· the principles set forth under Section 6, the Controller may fix such
rent as would be reasonable having regard to the situation, locality and condition
of the premises and the amenities provided therein and where there are similar or
nearly similar premises in the locality having regard also to the standard rent payable
in respect of such premises.
(5) to (7) .... H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A "It appears that in Dr. Balbir Singh's case there are certain observa-
tions made which appear to lend support to the contention raised on
behalf of the assessee that the figure of standard rent having been
arrived at has to be further scaled down. These observations made in
Dr. Balbir Singh's case display only an anxiety on the part of their
Lordships to see that as far as practicable the properties situated in
B
one locality are assessed by uniform standard so as to avoid the
criticism of invidious discrimination. The observations have to be
read in the light of the statutory provisions. The judgment in Dr.
Balbir Singh' s case cannot be read as laying down something which
is not contemplated by the law itself, when the field is entirely
c covered by the statutory law."

The argument of the appellant was that after having arrived at the fi~e of
standard rent the assessing authority should have treated that to be the upper
limit and thereafter he should have proceeded ·to apply the principle of parity.
This principle meant that the assessing authority must proceed to find out the
D standard rent of similarly situated properties in the locality whose construc-
tion might be older than that of the property of the appellant and after having
done this exercise the assessing authority should reduce the standard rent of
the premises in question so as to bring it at par with the standard rent of other
older premises in the locality. It would be only on that basis there would be
E equality and parity in the assessment of rateable value of the property tax as
amongst all the properties situated in one locality which would be more or
less same. This submission was also negatived by the High Court by making
the following observations :

"For several reasons, the submission of the learned counsel for
F the assessee does not appeal to us. The learned counsel for the MCD
has rightly pointed out that firstly there is no warrant in law to support
the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. Secondly, if
the proposition canvassed by the assessee was to be accepted, it would
be expecting the assessing authority to perform an exercise nearing
impossibility. Rarely it would be possible to expect two premises
G having similar nature of construction and accommodation. The as-
sessing authority is not possessed of any machinery under the law
which would enable it to collect and record such evidence. There is
no adversary system of deciding assessment matters before the
assessing authority. There is no independent agency available to
H assessing authority which would go out searching and co~lecting
L.T. COL. P.R. CHAUDHARY v. M.C.D. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 613

evidence and then bring on the record of the assessing authority such A
material as would enable the principle of parity canvassed by the
learned counsel for the assessee being applied. If the assessing
authority was itself to undertake that exercise, it would be busy
collecting evidence in the field left with hardly any time to sit in the
office and finalise the assessments. The time and energy which the
B
assessing authority would be required to spend in finalising individual
assessments of the properties would be so much that the imposition
of such a tax would be counter productive and may persuade the
Municipal Corporation to drop the tax itself instead of undertaking
extremely onerous task of assessing and realising the tax. There is yet
another flaw inherent. For the purpose of assessing one house c
prope1ty,-the assessing authority must conduct survey of the entire
locality to find out the property least valued and then scale down the
value of property under assessment. It was also submitted by the
learned counsel for the MCD that by a series of decisions of the
Supreme Court it is well settled that for the purpose of finding out
D
reasonable rent, the assessing authority has to keep in view the
principles of standard rent as deducible form the provisions of Rent
Control Law which permits cost of construction being adopted as
basis for calculating the rateable value in the case of self-occupied
properties. It is fair and reasonable if the assessing authority works
out the cost of land by reference to the date of commencement of E
construction and the reasonable amount spent in construction. That
exercise is by itself time consuming exercise, yet once it is done the
facts found would be relatable to the facts as actually exist. Where
is then the occasion for going a step ahead and then finding out the
value of land and cost of construction of comparable properties of the F
locality so as to scale down the rateable value and standard rent
determined of the properties under assessment? The Delhi Rent
Control Act nowhere contemplates such an exercise being undertaken
for the purpose of finding out standard rent so as to ascertain the
reasonable letting value."
G
High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of learned Additional
District Judge and restored that of the assessing authority.

On grant of leave to appeal by the appellant these matters have come
before us.
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A We are concerned in these appeals as the law existed prior to the
amendment of the Rent Act in 1988. By the Act 57 of 1988 the Rent Act
was not to apply to certain premises as provided in Section 35 of the Rent
Act.

In D1: Balbir Singh's case this Court was concerned with the determi-
B nation of rateable value in respect of properties situated in Delhi and governed
by the provisions of the .Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The Court considered four different categories
of properties, namely (1) where the properties are self-occupied, that is,
occupied by the owners; (2) where the properties are partly self-occupied and
partly tenanted; (3) where the land on which the property is constructed is
c lease hold land with a restriction that the lease hold interest shall not be
transferable without the approval of the lessor and (4) where the property has
been constructed in stages. Under provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act as well as Punjab Municipal Act, the criteria for determining rateable
value of building is the annual rent at which such building reasonably be
D expected to let from year to year. The word 'reasonably' in the definition is
very important. What the owner might reasonably expect to get form a
hypothetical tenant, if the building were let from year to year, affords the
statutory yardstick for determining the rateable value. Now what is reasonable
is a question of fact and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a given
situation. The Court considered various provisions of the Delhi Municipal
E Corporation Act and the Punjab Municipal Act as well as that of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958. Delhi Rent Control Act was amended in 1988 when
certain properties were taken out of the purview of that Act. The four
categories have been considered at pages 461, 466, 468 and 473 of the
Report. The statement of law laid by this Court after considering various
statutory provisions made in respect of the first category we quote :
F
5 3. Act not to apply to certain premises. - Nothing in this Act shall apply:
(a) to any premises belonging to the Government;
(b) to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government
in respect of the premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government:
G Provided that where any premises belonging to Government have been or are
lawfully let by any person by virtue of an agreement with the Government or
otherwise, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or other
authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply to such tenancy.
(c) to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three
thousand and five hundred rupees; or
(d) to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi Rent
Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, for a period of ten years from the date of
H completion of such construction.
,......,1

L.T. COL. P.R. CHAUDHARY v. M.C.D. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 615

'The retable value of the premises, whether residential or non- A
residential cannot exceed the standard rent, but, as already pointed out
above, it may in a given case be less than the standard rent. The
annual rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect
to get if the premises are let out would depend on the size, situation,
locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided
B
therein and all these and other relevant factors would have to be
evaluated in determining the rateable value, keeping in mind the
upper limit fixed by the standard rent. If this basic principle is borne
in mind, it would avoid wide disparity between the rateable value of
similar premises situate in the same locality, were some premises are
old premises constructed many years ago when the land prices were C
not high and the cost of construction had not escalated and others are
recently constructed premises when the prices of the land have gone
up almost 40 to 50 times and the cost of construction has gone up
almost 3 to 5 times in the last 20 years. The standard rent of the former
category of premises on the ptinciples set out in sub-section (l)(A)(2)(b) D
or (l)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6 would be comparatively low, while in
case of latter category of premises, the standard rent determinable on
these principles would be unduly high. If the standard rent were to
the measure of rateable value, there would be huge disparity between
t11e rateable value of old premises and recently constructed premises,
though they may be similar and situate in the same or adjoining E
locality. That would be wholly illogical and iffational. Therefore,
what is required to be considered for detetmining rateable value in
case of recently constructed premises is as to what is the rent which
the owner might reasonably expect to get if the premises are let out
and that is bound to be influenced by the rent which is obtainable for p
similar premises constructed earlier and situate in the same or
adjoining locality and which would necessarily be limited by the
standard rent of such premises. The position in regard to the deter-
mination of rateable value of self-occupied residential and non-
residential premises may thus be stated as follows : The standard rent
determinable on the principles set out in sub-section (2)(a) or (2)(b) G
_.,,.... or (l)(A)(2)(b) or (l)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6, as may be applicable,
would fix tl1e upper limit of the rateable value of the premises and
within such upper such upper limit, the assessing authorities would
have to determine as to what is the rent which the owner may
reasonably expect to get if the premises are let to a hypothetical tenant H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A and for the purpose of such determination, the assessing authorities
would have to evaluate factors such as size, situation, locality and
condition of the premises and the amenities therein provided. The
assessing authorities would also have to take into account the rent
which the owner of similar premises constructed earlier and situate
in the same or adjoining locality, might reasonably expect to receive
B
from a hypothetical tenant and which would necessarily be within the
upper limit of the standard rent of such premises, so that there is no
vide disparity between the rate of rent per square foot or square yard
which the owner might reasonably expect to get in case of the two
premises. Some disparity is bound to be there on account of the size,
c situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities
provided therein. Bigger size beyond a certain optimum would
depress the rate of rent and so also would less favourable situation
or locality or lower quality of construction or unsatisfactory condition
of the premises .:ir absence of necessary amenities and similar other
factors. But after taking into account these varying factors the
D
disparity should not be disproportionately large."

We find ourselves unable to subscribe to the reasoning of the High
Court and the views expressed by it. Law as interpreted by this Court cannot
be brushed aside by saying to the effect that it is not in conformity with the
E statutory provisions. Law laid by this Court is explicit and admits of no
doubt. For the purpose of arriving at the rateable value the basic principle
is the annual rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect
to get if the premises were let out to a hypothetical tenant. It would depend
on the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the ameni-
ties provided therein. All these and other relevant factors would have to be
F
followed in dete1mining the rateable value. That, however, cannot be in
excess of the standard rent which would be the upper limit. But then con-
~· .
sidering the run away prices of land and building materials, if the standard
rent were to be the measure of rateable value, there would be a huge disparity
between rateable value of old premises and those recently constructed though
G they may be siinilar and situated in the same or even adjoining locality.
Considering the same and similar services which are provided by the local
authority if there is vast disparity between the rateable value of the old
premises and the new premises that would be wholly illogical and irrational.
To avoid such a situation, Dr. Balbir Singh's case laid the principles which
H have to be followed in arriving at the rateable value of tl1e newly constructed
L.T. COL. P.R. CHAUDHARYv. M.C.D. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 617

premises. Of course, rateable value cannot be the same but then at the same A
time a wide disparity would certainly be irrational, unreasonable and unfair
which situation could be avoided by following the principles laid by this
Court, otherwise the rateable value recording wide disparity would be struck
down. There cannot be any ambiguity as to the principles laid by this Court
in arriving at the rateable value.
B
We also find that the reasoning of the High Court is flawed that the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi has no machinery if required to follow the
principles laid by this Court. No two premises can be similar, in all revenue
matters, there is no adversary system. Assessment records of the rateable
value of the premises in the locality are certainly available in the records of c
the Municipal Coqmration of Delhi. It has a field staff on the reports of which
notices for enhancement of the rateable value are issued. Assessing authority
hears the objections to the fixation of rateable value and acts in quasi-judicial
capacity. Is orders are appealable. It cannot act in arbitration fashion ignoring
principles of law laid by the Court. It cannot fall back on the spacious plea
that it has no means to act on the principles of law laid by this Court. Even D
notice for enhancement of rateable value has to be based on reasons which
must exist on record and the owner is entitled to be apprised of those reasons.
High Court lent its support to the plea of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
which is contrary to the principles laid by this Court.
E
The appeals are allowed with costs. Judgments of the High Court in
both the appeals are set aside. Matter will go back to the Assessing Officer
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to aITive at the rateable value in
accordance with law keeping in view the principles laid by this Court in the
case of D1: Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and
Others3. F

S.V.K. Appeals allowed.

G

3. (1965] 2 SCR 439 H