The court interpreted Sections 135 and 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and held that the Assessor and Collector have the authority to determine the rateable value of property and that the Additional District Judge erred in interfering with the Assessor and Collector's determination.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order ofthe Additional District Judge, Delhi, who had allowed the appeal of the respondents filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent No. 1 is the ownerof the house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. In respect of the year 1984-85 theassessor and Collector vide his order dated 7/01/1987 fixed the rateablevalue at Rs86,670. 00w. e. f. 1st November, 1984 and Rs. 1,13,470. 00 w. e. f. 1/02/1985. In arriving at this value the Assessor and Collector took intoconsideration the cost of land and the cost of construction as well as the rentwhich was received for the part of the building which had been let out. Theconstruction, in the instant case, had commenced in the year 1981. The Assessor and Collector took the market price of the land to be Rs. 1800 per sq. mtr. In arriving at the cost of the construction he applied the C P. W. D. rates. Theaccessor and Collector further found that the net rent which was received by therespondents was Rs. 4428. 00 per month. He also noted that the respondents hadreceived security deposit of Rs. 45,000. 00 and he then made an addition of Rs. 450. 00 per month, to the actual rent being received, by holding that this sum ofrs. 450. 00 per month was by way of interest on the security deposit.

( 3 ) AN appeal was filed and the Additional Distt. Judge. Delhi vide orderdated 19/10/1988 allowed the same. He came to the conclusion onthe basis of a circular issued by the D. D. A. where the land in question hadbeen valued at Rs. 940. 00 per sq. mtr. , that the said rate should be adopted instead of Rs. 1800. 00 per sq. mtr. The Additional District Judge further held thatthe Assessor and Collector should not have rejected the valuation report arbitrarily and if he was not satisfied then another valuation report should have beenobtained under Section 135 of the D. M. C. Act. The contention of therespondents herein against the addition of Rs. 450. 00 per month was alsoaccepted.

( 4 ) IN the present writ petition it is submitted by learned counsel forthe petitioner that the aforesaid decision of the Additional District Judge isincorrect.

( 5 ) OUR attention has been drawn to a judgment of a Division Bench ofthis Court In C. W. P. No. 438 of 1988, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. K. P. Gupta, decided on 26/04/1980. That case was also concerned with landin Vasant Vihar. Guidelines have been laid down by the Division Bench andthe matter has been remanded to the Assessor and Collector for fresh determination of the market value of the land in accordance with the said guidelines. Following the aforesaid decision, we also hold that the Assessor and Collectorshould value the land afresh as on 1/08/1981.

( 6 ) AS regards the cost of construction is concerned, in view of the factthat the case is being remanded for fresh valuation in respect of the land, itwould, in our opinion, be appropriate that the Assessor and Collector determinesthe cost of construction afresh. It will be open to the respondent to produceevidence showing his cost of construction. In such circumstances it is notnecessary to rely wholly on the valuation reports because the owner should beable to show, ordinarily, as to how much money has been spent in theconstruction of the house. Of course if the Assessor and valuer comes to theconclusion, on the basis of some cogent evidence and material facts, that valueshown is much less than what it ought to lave been, then it may be open to theassessor and Collector not to accept the cost of construction as indicated by theowner. In such a case it would be the duty of the Assessor and Collector tocompute the cost of construction and in doing so, assistance can be had fromc. P. W. D. rates which should merely be taken as a guideline and not conclusive.

( 7 ) COMING to the last question, namely, the addition of Rs. 450. 00 permonth, we find there is no justification that the As