Judgment

HANSARIA, J.- Leave granted.

2. New Delhi Municipal Committee is the appellant in all the cases. It has felt aggrieved at the judgment of the High Court of Delhi passed in the writ petition filed by it which was taken up for hearing along with some other writ petitions filed, inter aila, by Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited, who is the principal respondent in some of the appeals. The subject-matter of the writ petitions before the High Court related to the fixation of annual value for the purpose of determining house tax to be paid by the respondents herein. The stand of the Municipal Committee before the High Court was that in fixing annual value under the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act, the provisions of which Act admittedly apply, the estimated market value of the site and land attached to the house or building has also to be taken into consideration as required by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of the aforesaid section. This contention has not been accepted by the High Court, the result of which is that the annual value of the buildings has come down considerably which has affected the ultimate amount to be realised as house tax from the respondents.

3. The short point for consideration, therefore, is whether while determining the annual value of the buildings, market value of the land has also to be taken into consideration. According to the contesting respondents, who are, apart from the aforesaid Gymkhana Club, Chelmsford Club and Young Mens Christian Association (YMCA), market value cannot be taken into consideration as they have only leasehold interest in the land which has no market value. It has been contended on behalf of these respondents by their respective counsel that all the lease deeds, to which we shall advert a little later, show that the land is not transferable without sanction in writing of the authority concerned and use of the land has also been restricted by some terms of the covenants. The contention, therefore, is that such a leasehold land cannot have market and so there cannot be any market value for such a land.

4. The aforesaid question is not res integra inasmuch as a three-judge Bench of this Court itself had examined this question in Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation Delhi{(1985) 1 SCC 167}. That case had however dealt with many categories of properties situate in Union Territory of Delhi and the question of law which this Court was called upon to decide was as how to determine their rateable value. One of the categories of the properties, which was described as third category in that case, was the one where the land on which premises had been constructed was leasehold land, relating to which category a discussion finds place at pp. 468-473 of the Report. Prior to noting as what was stated relating to such premises, it may be pointed out that on earlier occasion in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee{(1980) 1 SCC 685} it had been held that annual value for the purpose of house tax would be governed by Rent Control Act and must be limited by the measure of standard rent determinable under that Act.

5. The question for determination in Balbir Singh case{(1985) 1 SCC 167} was which provision of the Rent Act was relevant to determine the standard rent. The relevant provisions of Rent Act were Sections 6 and 9 which have been quoted at pp. 457-58 and 459-60 of the Report. The stand of the Delhi Municipal Corporation then was that as the plot of land on which the premises stood could not be transferred without the previous consent of the Government, it had no market value; and so, standard rent of the premises could not be determined on the principles set out in sub-sections (1)(A)(2)(b) or (1)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6; and consequently the provision in subsection (4) of Section 9 applied. This contention was not accepted by the Balbir Singh{(1985) 1 SCC 167} Bench by pointing out that despite the aforesaid condition of the lease it did not necessarily mean t