of Delhi, and that the said rateable value had been companyrectly assessed by the Deputy Assessor and Collector at Rs 8970.
Respondent 1 filed an appeal against the said order passed by the Deputy Assessor and Collector which was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Delhi by judgment dated 15 10 1990.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 15 10 1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 24 7 1991 on the view that the order passed by the Additional District Judge is in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Balbir Singh Dr v. Municipal Corpn.
9120 for the period from 1 4 1980 to 31 3 1985, but has differed from the assessment made by the Deputy Assessor and Collector in respect of the period from 1 4 1985 and has assessed the rateable value at Rs 6900 per annum with effect from 1 4 1985.
The said amount of Rs 8970 was determined under Section 6 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act by taking into companysideration the price of the land and the total companyt of companystruction of the entire building.
Assessment proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Assessor and Collector of the appellant who passed an order dated 28 6 1988 whereby the rateable value with effect from 1 4 1980 was assessed at Rs 9120 per annum and for the subsequent period with effect from 1 4 1988 the rateable value was assessed at Rs 8970 per annum.
The Additional District Judge has upheld the assessment of rateable value of Rs.
of Delhi, .
Additional companystructions, i.e., a garage, a servant quarter and a store, were made by Respondent 1 during October 1979 to July 1980.
This appeal relates to the assessment of property tax in respect of house property bearing No.
The Additional District Judge has arrived at the rateable value of Rs 6900 by adding to the rateable value of Rs 4860 for the original structure the rateable value for Rs 2040 determined in respect of the additional structure on companyts basis.
The servant quarter was let out but the garage and store were in self occupation of Respondent 1.
Special leave granted.
Subsequently the tenant vacated the premises and it is in occupation of Respondent 1.
B.B. 16, G.K. Enclave, New Delhi, belonging to Respondent 1.
The said property was initially let out to a tenant and it was being assessed at a rateable value of Rs 4860 per annum fixed on companyparative rental basis, with effect from 1971.
