( 1 ) THE short question which arises in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is liable to deposit the disputed property tax in respect of the assessment year commencing from 1986 before his nine house-tax appeals filed before the District Judge under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter called the Act ) can be heard. The matter is now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Kishore and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, JT 1992 (5) S. C. 335.

( 2 ) BEFORE we analyse the aforesaid judgement we may briefly give the facts of this case. The petitioner took on perpetual lease a plot of land measuring 2200 sq. yards vide perpetual lease deed dated February 7. 1981 and building plans were sanctioned in August 1984 and the construction of building was commenced in October 1984 and it was completed in 1986. A notice dated March 27, 1986 issued under Section 126 of the Act was served on the petitioner proposing to increase the rateable value from Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to Rs. 7,02,000. 00 with effect from April 1, 1986. Objections were filed by the petitioner in response to the said notice. The Deputy Assessor and Collector passed the order dated July 7, 1990 by which he fixed the, rateable value at Rs. 6,300. 00 per annum with effect from April 1, 1982 and fixed Rs. 3,22,580. 00 per annum with effect from March 3, 1986 onwards. So this order covers the nine assessment years. The petitioner has filed nine house-tax appeals before the District Judge under Section 169 of the Act. The District Judge has declined the prayer of the petitioner for staying the recovery of the property tax. Thereafter theetitioner filed the present petition.

( 3 ) IT is evident from the provisions of the Act particularly Section 127 that the Commissioner can prepare a new assessment list every year or can adopt rateable value for the following year meaning thereby that for every year assesment of the property has to be made. In case the previous assesment is to be varied, a notice under Section 126 has to be issued and after considering the objections, if any filed, the new assessment can be made for a particular year. Section 170 of the Act lays down that no appeal shall be heard or determined unless the disputed property tax is paid. Section 169 permits filing of an appeal against any levy or assessment of any tax.

( 4 ) THE apex court in the case of Shyam Kishore (supra) has now categorically laid down that the District Judge can entertain an appeal under Section 169 of the Act and can grant time to the appeallant for depositing the disputed tax of a particular assessment and can hear the appeal only after the disputed tax has been deposited. The Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the assessment being made in respect of several years and the point as to how the matters regarding the subsequent years are to be dealt with by the Corporation in case the appeal is filed in respect of base year i. e. the assessment made in respect of first year it was observed by the Supreme-Court as follows:-

"in the present statutory context it sounds plausible to say that such an appeal can be admitted or entertained but only cannot be heard or disposed of without pre-deposit of the disputed tax. Such an interpretation will provide some much-needed relief from the harshness of the provision. These are not days in which the calculation of the property tax is simple and uncomplicated, the determination of the annual value of the property, except when based on the actual rent received from the property involves various subjective factors and not unoften, there is a wide gulf between the tax admitted and the tax demanded. Sometimes to compel the assessee to pay up the demanded tax for several years in succession might very well cripple him altogether. This apart an assessee may not be able to deposit the tax while filing the appeal but may be able to pay it up within a short time or a