The legal principle established is that vacancy remission is applicable to properties capable of being let out but not let out, and it is a benefit available when the property is neither occupied by a tenant nor self-occupied.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has impugned the show cause notice issued by the respondent Corporation dated 14. 5. 1991 in respect of bill raised for property No. 317-18 Block B, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. The property was acquired by the petitioner in pursuance to the perpetual lease deed executed on 7. 8. 1984 though the possession of the plot was taken on 26. 3. 1977.

( 2 ) THE notice dated 23. 3. 1990 was issued to the petitioner under Section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 for assessing the property for vacant land tax with effect from 1. 4. 1979 to which the petitioner filed the objections. The claim of the petitioner was that no building had been constructed on the land and only a boundary wall has been erected with a tin shed for the Chowkidar to prevent encroachment. The petitioner also claimed vacancy remission in respect of the plot for various years.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two issues raised in the present petition; first is in respect of the effect of the rateable value and the second is in respect of grant of vacancy remission.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties agree that in so far as the first issue is concerned, the same is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shashank Steel Industries (P) Ltd. , 100 (2002) DLT 66. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Housing and Urban Development Corporation ltd. v. M. C. D. , I (2001) SLT 207=89 (2001) DLT 185 (SC)=air 2001 SC 432, in this behalf. Thus in view of the execution of the lease deed on 7. 8. 1984 the liability to pay property tax would only arise from the said date.

( 5 ) THE second issue is in respect of a claim of the petitioner for vacancy remission for which the petitioner had applied. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the land in question is not occupied it is liable for vacancy remission. However, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner is not entitled to vacancy remission since the property was never let out and the claim of vacancy remission can only be granted in cases where the properties has been let out and thereafter has remained vacant. Thus the contention is that at least one letting is required at the initial stage before such vacancy remission can be granted.

( 6 ) THE present case is one of vacant land and not of vacant property. It would be necessary to reproduce the relevant sections of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act):

"164. Remission, or refund of tax. (1) If any building together with land appurtenant thereto has remained vacant and unproductive of rent for sixty or more consecutive days, the Commissioner shall remit or refund, as the case may be, two-thirds of such portion of the general tax assessed on the rateable value thereof, as may be proportionate to the number of days during which the said building together with the land appurtenant thereto has remained vacant and unproductive of rent. (2) If any land, not being land appurtenant to a building, has remained vacant and unproductive of rent for sixty or more consecutive days, the Commissioner shall remit or refund, as the case may be, one-half of such portion of the general tax assessed on the rateable value thereof, as may be proportionate to the number of days during which the said land has remained vacant and unproductive of rent. 166. Notice to be given of the circumstances in which remission or refund is claimed. 167. What buildings, are to bedeemedvacant. (1) For the purposes of Sections 164 and 165, no land, building or tenement shall be deemed vacant if maintained as a pleasure resort or town or country house or be deemed unproductive of rent if let to a tenant who has a continuing right of occupation thereof, whether he is in actual occupation or not. (2) The burden of