ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has challenged an assessment of the rateable value of the appellants residential premises under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. According to the appellant, it was first assessed at Rs 39,260. The appellant protested against the assessment. An order was then passed by the Assistant Assessor and Collector valuing the property at Rs 21,210 for the period 1-4-1989 to 31-3-1994 and from 31-4-1994 till date at Rs 14,100. The appellant has no grievance as far as fixation of the value at Rs 14,100 is concerned for the period subsequent to 1-4-1994. He has also been paying the dues under the Act to the respondent on such basis. He, however, contends that the rate fixed at Rs 21,210 was fixed without giving him any opportunity of being heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the appellant had been heard. He had appeared and made his statements. The documents already produced by the appellant had been considered.

4. The appellant instead of preferring appeal under Section 169 of the Act filed a writ application before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application. The Division Bench also dismissed the appellants appeal.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has now come before us.

6. It is true that the order of the respondent Authorities dated 14-11-1996 records that the appellant had appeared and requested for rectification of ex parte assessment dated 9-11-1993 and had also produced documents. However, it appears that the basis for arriving at the market price of the land had not in fact been disclosed to the appellant nor was the appellant given any opportunity of meeting the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 14-11-1996 and direct the authorities concerned to redetermine the rateable value for the period from March 1989 to 31-3-1994.

7. It is made clear that in the event there is an adverse order by the respondent Authorities, the appellant is at liberty to prefer an appeal therefrom since that is the appropriate remedy under Section 169 of the Act.

8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.