( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order of assessment dated 28. 7. 95 assessing the property No. 17- 18, Nehru Place to property tax for the period commencing 1. 4. 88.

( 2 ) THE relevant part of the order assessing the rateable value of the property is extracted and reproduced as under :-

"rateable Value is fixed as under :- FF has been let out to M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. at the monthly rent of Rs. 71,139. 00 w. e. f. 12. 12. 89. Besides Rs. 28,445. 60 monthly charge for air conditioning equipment hire Rs. 14,227. 80 on a/c of maintenance of open area. These are considered to be the rent. Apart from above the tenant has given a sum of Rs. 6,82,934. 40, as security deposit. Interest on security is considered as rent thus the total rent including interest on security comes to Rs. 1,22,359. 00. SF is let out to M/s. Bombay Types International Ltd. on the same conditions as aforesaid. The rent including interest on security of Rs. 8,94,614. 00 comes to Rs. 1,60,285. 00. GF was let out to M/s. Modi Olivetti Ltd. on the same terms and conditions including interest on securities of Rs. 6,68,534. 00. The rent thus, comes to Rs. 1,19,787. 00. In this way total rent works out to Rs. 4,02,430. 00 and RV after 10% for statutory deduction comes to Rs. 43,46,250. 00. The proportionate RV of self occupied portion comes to Rs. 1,60,200. 00 , in this way total RV comes to Rs. 45,06,450. 00 which is fixed wef 11. 12. 89. "

( 3 ) THOUGH challenge was also laid to the vires of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, however, Shri Arun Jaitely, the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the present petition, the petitioner confines his challenge to the following two issues and gives up the challenge laid to the vires of the Section 116 (3) abovesaid. The contentions are :-

(I)THAT the value of air-conditioning equipment could not have been taken into consideration for assessing rateable value of the property; (ii)that interest on security could not have been taken into consideration for assessing the rent of the property.

( 4 ) IN support of the first contention, reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Livers Ltd. VS. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. , 1995 (3) SCC 716 wherein pari materia provision of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 came up for consideration of their Lordships. The cost of air-conditioning machinery was included in the cost of construction for the purpose of assessing the rateable value of the property. Section 154 (2) of the Act provided that the value of any machinery contained in or situated upon any building is not to be included in the rateable value. Their Lordships held :-

"when the legislature sought to exclude the value of machinery of the type mentioned in sub-section (2) from forming a part of rateable value, some meaning has to be ascribed to the provision, otherwise the intention of the legislature would get frustrated. We, therefore, state that the fact that a machinery gets embedded to a building or becomes an integral part of it has no relevance while deciding the question of applicability of the exemption provision. " (para 9)

4. 1 Sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the DMC Act reads as under :- " (3) All plant and machinery contained or situate in or upon any land or building and belonging to any of the classes specified from time to time by public notice by the Commissioner with the approval of the Standing Committee, shall be deemed to form part of such land or building for the purpose of determining the rateable value thereof under sub-section (I) but save as aforesaid no account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery contained or situated in or upon any such land or building. " (underlining by us)

4. 2 The expression - "no account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery contained in or situated in or upon any such land or b