The rateable value of a building cannot exceed the standard rent determinable under the Rent Control Act.

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions bearing Nos. 573, 574 and 575 of 1976 are being taken up together for the purposes of disposal as the parties in the three writ petitions are the same, and the common questions of law and factswhich are Bkely to arise while disposing them of, are also the same Reliefs sought are also identical in all the three writ petitions. Facts in brief which led to the presentation of the three petitions are being enumerated below in order to facilitate the disposal.

( 2 ) THE petitioner are a private limited company. They are the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. G. 39, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property for the sake of convenience ). The ground floor portion of the said premises is in occupation of State Bank of India as a tenant. The petitioner have cleared the, house tax for the year 1972-73. The petitioner were served with a notice dated November 1, 1975 under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act ( the Act for short), for the amendment of the annual value of the premises referred to above for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 under the proposed Resolution No. 34 dated October 28, 1975 whereby the respondent proposed to revise the annual value to Rs. 91,800. 00. The petitioner were required through the notice adverted to above to file objections in writing on of before December 6, 1975 and to appear before the respondent on December 9, 1975. The petitioner filed objection on December 1, 1975 to the abovesaid proposed annual value. The afore-mentioned Resolution of the respondent Committee purporting to revise the assessment list was objected to on the ground of being illegal and without jurisdiction. The objections preferred by the respondent were rejected December 9, 1975 and the respondent revised the annual value from Rs. 6000. 00 to Rs. 1,02,000 less 10 for the period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973. The petitioner approached the Additional District Magistrate under Sections 84 of the Act agaomst the abovesaid Resolution No. 64 dated December 9,1975 The said appeal was dismissed vide judgement and order dated March 11, 1976. The impugned Resolutioe dated December 9, 1975 passed by the respodent and the judgement and order dated March 11, 1976 passed by the Additional District Magistrate are without jurisdiction contrary to law inasmuch as the respondent had no jurisdiction or power to amend the assessment list retrospectively under Section 67 of the Act in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court as reported in Life Insurance Corporation v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, ILR (1973) 11 Delhi 112 (1) It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court.

( 3 ) THE respondent have opposed the petition, inter alia, on the following grounds : that the disputed property has been let out to State Bank of India on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,500. 00 w. . e. f. November, 1971. The said property remained under assessed iinadvertently. The respondent on detection of the mistake revised the annual value of the property From Rs. 6000. 00 to Rs. l,02,000. 00 on the basis of the actual rent vide Resolution No. 64-66 dated December 9, 1975 for the assessment years 1972-73. 1973-74 and 1974-75 under Sec. tion 60 of the Act. "since the present case involves several questions of disputed facts hence the petitioner cannot involte the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is incorrect to suggest that the respondent are not competent to amend the assessment list with retrospective efect. The provisions of Section 84 of the Act are quite clear and provide that in case of under assessment on account of fraud or mistake on the part of the Committee or on the part of the assessee, in that eventuality, the same can be rectified at any time after making amendment in the list. The petitions are false and frivolous and they are liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) AFTER going through t