This argument was however rejected by the Court and it was held that even if the standard rent of a building has number been fixed by the Controller under Section 9 of the Rent Act, the landlord cannot reasonably expect to receive from a hypothectical tenant anything more than the standard rent determinable under the provisions of the Rent Act and this would be so equally whether the building has been let out to a tenant who has lost his right to apply for fixation of the standard rent by reason of expiration of the period of limitation prescribed by Section 12 of the Rent Act or the building is self occupied by the owner.
The basis on which the property was assessed was the rent being received by the appellant from State Bank of India to whom they had let out at Rs.
12,687/ per month.
The admitted facts are that the appellant is having a house in Sangrur.
The appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil W.P. No.
For the assessment year 1987 88, the respondents have assessed the ratable value of the house at Rs.1,50,472.50 after giving standard deductions under s.3 1 b of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 for short, the Act .
Leave granted.
The municipal authorities urged that if it was number penal for the landlord to receive the companytractual rent from the tenant, even if it be higher than the standard rent determinable under the privisions of the Rent Act, it would number be incorrect to say that the landlord companyld reasonably expect to let the building at the companytractual rent and of the companytractual rent therefore provided a companyrect measure for determination of the annual value of the building.
19209/91 dismissing the writ petition in limine.
