9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses, if any, necessary to maintain the land or building in a state to command that rent, and (b) the water tax or the scavenging tax or both, if the rent is inclusive of either or both of the said taxes : Provided that if the rent is inclusive of charges for water supplied by measurement, then, lor the purpose of this section the rent shall be treated as inclusive of water tax on rateable value and the deduction of the water tax shall be made as provided therein : Provided further that in respect of any land or building the standard rent of which has been fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952), the rateable value thereof shall not exceed that annual amount of the standard rent so fixed. appellant comprised of his house constructed on a plot of land bearing No. 11-1787 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, measuring 311 Sq. yards. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided by the same Division Bench on May 29, 1997. Civil Appeal No. 4105 of 1998 is against that judgment of the High Court. It would, therefore, be appropriate to refer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commencement of the construction. Provided that where the rent so calculated exceeds twelve hundred rupees per annum, this clause shall have effect as if for the words seven and a- half per cent , the words eight and one-fourth per cent had been substituted; (B) ..which measured 812 sq. yards at ₹ 6,00,000 as on the date when building plans were sanctioned. He then estimated the reasonable cost of construction at ₹ 12,98,000. Keeping in view the provisions of the Rent Act he arrived at the aggregate of market value of the land and the cost of construction at ₹ 18,98,000. Standard rent of the property at the rate of 8.25% was thus ₹ 1,56,585. After 10% rebate for repairs, rateable value was arrived at ₹ 1.40.930. The effective date of fixation of rateable value was taken as March 17. 1986 when the appellant applied for the occupancy certificate of the premises. Objections of the appellant that the principles laid by this Court in Dr. Balbir Singh and Others v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others3 be taken into consideration while fixing the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servations made in Dr. Balbir Singh's case display only an anxiety on the part of their Lordships to see that as far as practicable the properties situated in one locality are assessed by uniform standard so as to avoid the criticism of invidious discrimination. The observations have to be read in the light of the statutory provisions. The judgment in Dr. Balbir Singh's case cannot be read as laying down something which is not contemplated by the law itself, when the field is entirely covered by the statutory law. The argument of the appellant was that after having arrived at the figure of standard rent the assessing authority should have treated that to be the upper limit and thereafter he should have proceeded to apply the principle of parity. This principle meant that the assessing authority must proceed to find out the standard rent of similarly situated properties in the locality whose construction might be older than that of the property of the appellant and after having done this exercise the assessing authority should reduce the standard rent of the premises in question so as to bring it at par with the standard rent of other older premises in the locality. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f standard rent as deducible form the provisions of Rent Control Law which permits cost of construction being adopted as basis for calculating the rateable value in the case of self-occupied properties. It is fair and reasonable if the assessing authority works out the cost of land by reference to the date of commencement of construction and the reasonable amount spent in construction. That exercise is by itself time consuming exercise, yet once it is done the facts found would be relatable to the facts as actually exist. Where is then the occasion for going a step ahead and then finding out the value of land and cost of construction of comparable properties of the locality so as to scale down the rateable value and standard rent determined of the properties under assessment? The Delhi Rent Control Act nowhere contemplates such an exercise being undertaken for the purpose of finding out standard rent so as to ascertain the reasonable letting value. High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of learned Additional District Judge and restored that of the assessing authority. On grant of leave to appeal by the appellant these matters have come before us. We are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... let by any person by virtue of an agreement with the Government or otherwise, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply to such tenancy. (c) to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; or (d) to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988. for a period of ten years from the date of completion of such construction. The retable value of the premises, whether residential or non-residential cannot exceed the standard rent, but, as already pointed out above, it may in a given case be less than the standard rent. The annual rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect to get if the premises are let out would depend on the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein and all these and other relevant factors would have to be evaluated in determining the rateable value, keeping in mind the upper limit fixed by the standard rent. If this basic principle is borne in mind, it would avoid wide disparity between the rateab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive from a hypothetical tenant and which would necessarily be within the upper limit of the standard rent of such premises, so that there is no vide disparity between the rate of rent per square fool or square yard which the owner might reasonably expect to get in case of the two premises. Some disparity is bound to be there on account of the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein. Bigger size beyond a certain optimum would depress the rate of rent and so also would less favourable situation or locality or lower quality of construction or unsatisfactory condition of the premises or absence of necessary amenities and similar other factors. But after taking into account these varying factors the disparity should not be disproportionately large. We find ourselves unable to subscribe to the reasoning of the High Court and the views expressed by it. Law as interpreted by this Court cannot be brushed aside by saying to the effect that it is not in conformity with the statutory provisions. Law laid by this Court is explicit and admits of no doubt. For the purpose of arriving at the rateable value the basic principle is the annua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
