1. The writ petition impugns the order dated 2nd February, 1994 of the Joint Assessor & Collector of the respondent MCD fixing the rateable value of Property No.14, Community Centre, Zamrudpur, New Delhi at `5,19,080/- w.e.f. 20th September, 1990. It was the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition itself that the writ petition involving similar questions of law as raised in the present writ petition had been admitted by this Court. Notice of the writ petition was issued and the counsel for the respondent MCD on 14th July, 1994 agreed not to enforce the demand pursuant to the assessment aforesaid. After completion of the pleadings, Rule D.B. was issued on 13th February, 1995 and the operation of the impugned order stayed. On 25th March, 2010 the counsel for the petitioner stated that in the present writ petition there was no challenge to any provision of law but only to the order of assessment dated 2nd February, 1994 aforesaid and hence the matter was ordered to be listed before the Single Bench as per roster.

2. Though in the writ petition the rateable value assessed has also been challenged but the counsel for the petitioner has confined the argument to, whether the property is liable to be assessed at all for the purposes of the property tax or not.

3. The facts in this regard and which are not in dispute are:-

(i) the petitioner was granted a perpetual lease of a plot of land aforesaid i.e. plot no. 14,Community Centre, Zamrudpur, New Delhi admeasuring 218.50 sq. mtrs on 3rd February, 1984, though possession thereof had been delivered pursuant to allotment on 20th May, 1981;

(ii) upon the petitioner applying for sanction of building plan for construction of superstructure on the said plot, sanction was accorded on 1st February, 1984;

(iii) the petitioner on 20th September, 1990 gave notice to the respondent MCD of completion of construction and applied for grant of Occupancy Certificate;

(iv) the application of the petitioner for Occupancy Certificate was rejected on 20th September, 1991;

(v) that the respondent MCD issued notice dated 7th /11th March, 1991 to the petitioner under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for enhancing the rateable value from the then existing (i.e. as of a plot) of ` 9,740/- to `14,69,000/- w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 for the reason of “assessment of land and/or building previously not included”;

(vi) the petitioner filed objections to the said notice inter alia contending that the Completion Certificate having not been issued till then and the building being incapable of occupation, the notice was bad.

4. The Joint Assessor & Collector of the respondent MCD in the impugned order has held that property tax is leviable from the date the building is occupied or complete; that the petitioner having applied for the Completion Certificate on 20th September, 1990 means that the property was completed in all respect and fit for occupation on that date; that rejection of the Occupancy Certificate was mainly on the ground of the same having not been applied by all the Directors of the petitioner Company and due to non submission of other relevant documents. It is recorded in the impugned order that it was submitted before the MCD that there was a dispute among the partners/Directors of the petitioner company. The Joint Assessor & Collector of respondent MCD held that the levy of property tax in respect of a building completed in all respects as declared by the petitioner himself could not be withheld only for the reasons of non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate and which also was attributable owing to internal disputes as to the management of the petitioner Company. The enhancement in property tax was made effective from 20th September, 1990 i.e. the date when the petitioner had given notice of completion.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sections 129 & 346(2) of the DMC Act to contend that without issuance of Occupancy Certificate and ti