Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. As similar questions and issues arise for consideration in these two Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD, for short) raising additional grounds of appeal will also be disposed of by this common judgment. During the course of hearing, arguments on the said applications were also addressed.

2. The above writ petitions filed by the MCD pertain to property No. M- 6, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The said property is owned by Mr.Deepak Jain and Ms. Trishla Jain, (hereinafter referred to as the respondents, for short). Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14887/2004 pertain to the year 1999-2000 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14897/2004 pertains to the year 2000-2001. Assessment for these years was made vide Order dated 28th March, 2002 passed by the Joint Assessor and Collector. The said Order refers to notice dated 27th March, 2000, under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) proposing to enhance rateable value of the property from Rs. 3,72,480/-

p.a. to Rs. 88,78,160/- p.a. This notice was issued on account of first letting and change of user. By Order dated 28th March, 2002 rateable value was fixed at Rs. 63,75,000/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1999, Rs. 65,87,500/- w.e.f. 1st March, 2000 and Rs. 62,10,200/- w.e.f. 1st January, 2001.

3. Respondents thereafter preferred appeals under Section 169 of the Act and the same were disposed of by the impugned Order dated 10th July, 2002. The Appellate Court has, inter alia, held that the notice for enhancement issued under Section 126(1) of the Act was void on two grounds. Firstly, notice did not disclose details and reasons for enhancing the rateable value and secondly, notice was not served within the financial year in which it was issued i.e.; 31st March 2000. MCD has accordingly filed the present Writ Petitions impugning the Order dated 10th July, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

4. Photocopy of the notice dated 27th March, 2000 under Section 126 of the Act has been placed on record by the respondents. The case of the respondents is that the said notice was received on 3rd April, 2000 i.e. after 31st March, 2000. It is the case of the respondents that the said notice is a nullity because it was not served during the financial year 1999-2000 i.e. before 31st March, 2000. It is also the case of the respondents that the said notice cannot be relied upon for enhancing the rateable value w.e.f. 1st April, 2000. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Kishore and Ors. v. M.C.D. and Anr. reported in 48 (1992) DLT 277 (S.C.) and Aggarwal Juneja Associates v. M.C.D. and Ors. reported in (89) 2001 DLT 623. On the question of liability to pay enhanced house tax for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2000 with reference to the expression given used in the proviso to Section 126(1) of the Act, reliance was placed upon the decision in K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda reported in : [1964] 7 SCR 618 and MCD v. Dharma Properties and Anr. reported in 120 (2005) DLT 588 . On the question that notice did not give full details and particulars and is thereforee a nullity, reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 250. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has relied upon MCD v. Ramkishan Khandelwal and Ors. reported in 101 (2002) DLT 169 .

5. The question whether the notice gave sufficient details and particulars does not require elaborate examination. The notice under Section 126 of the Act sets out reasons for enhancement of the assessment list as under : increase in rateable value due to first letting and change of use. The res