( 1 ) SINCE we have heard the matter at length the writ petitions can be disposed of at this stage itself.

( 2 ) THESE five writ petitions raise acommon question of law. The question is as to what would the annual value of the properties subject-matter of these petitions underclause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short the Act ) as applicable to New Delhi. The assessment year is 1991-92 (1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992 ). The properties involved are flats situated in multi-storeyed buildings in New Delhi area where the Act applies.

( 3 ) TO understand the issues involved in these petitions it will be appropriate to set out the facts of only one of these cases. The petitioner in C. W-P. No. 1032/92 owns flat in Surya Kiran Building at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The flat has been let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,316. 00. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (N. D. M. C.), the first respondent, issued a notice under section 65 of the Act proposing to enhance the annual value from existing Rs. 9,798. 00 to Rs. 56,977. 00. In the notice it was stated that earlier the property had been assessed on the basis of standard rent as per provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) and that after the amendment of the DRC Act w. e. f. 1 December 1988 it was proposed to revise the assessment of the. annual value as the property was fetching a rent more thanrs. 3,500. 00 per month. The notice further said that after the amendment, protection of the DRC Act was taken away in respect of the property in question and the ratio of computing rateable value as pronounced by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh s case (Dr. Balbir Singh and others v. M. C. D. and others, AIR 1985 S. C. 339) was not then available and that the assessment was proposed to be revised at the annual actual rent/market rent which the property was fetching. Though this was the basis for proposed revision of the annual value it was also mentioned in the notice that (1) 10% increase in rent/actual increase in rent as per lease agreement provisions, whichever is higher, will be applicable every three years effective from 1 April 1989, and (2) properties self-occupied or with any additions/alterations are proposed to be assessed @ 10% of the market price of land and cost of construction, irrespective of the fact whether the property is residential or non-residential. These were, however, not made applicable as per the notice. The petitioner filed objections. It disputed the contentions of the N. D. M. C. and said that the flat was in existence and was being assessed since 1983-84 and that the amended provisions of DRC Act would be applicable only to properties which came into existence after 1 December 1988. It also mentioned that once the annual value had been fixed on the basis of standard rent there was no question of its enhancement until there was any structural change in the property, and since there was none the notice was not valid. The petitioner also disputed the ground of 10% increase in the rent as factually wrong and said that the property continue to be covered under the provisions of the DRC Act even after its amendment and the annual value could not be fixed other than as fixed on the cost of construction basis as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

( 4 ) N. D. M. C. by its resolution rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and finalised the annual value of the property at Rs. 56,971. 00 less 10% for the year 1991-92. We may reproduce the relevant portion of the decision of the N. D. M. C. :-

"it has been contended that the proposed annual value is not in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. The property is constructed prior to 1. 12. 1988 and is covered under the Amended DRC Act. Further, the Committee cannot revise the rateable value as the same already stands finalised on purchase price of the flat. The premises is on rent and is fetching a rent