MCD vs Sarbinder Grewal

Hima Kohli, J.—The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/MCD assailing the order dated 23.01.1993 passed by the learned ADJ. By the aforesaid order, the learned ADJ set aside the assessment order passed by the Deputy Assessor & Collector on 01.06.1990 in respect of flat bearing No. 6/605, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi for the assessment year 1990-1991 and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority for deciding the same afresh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner/MCD has preferred the present petition.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.6.1985, the respondent No. 1 bought the flat in question for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,800/-. The aforesaid flat was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,387.50 paise w.e.f. 28.11.1985. The property was assessed by the petitioner at the ratable value of Rs. 47,390/- w.e.f. 28.11.1985 u/s 6(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act"). On 07.05.1990, the petitioner/MCD called upon the respondent to file objections. The respondent No. 1 filed her objections on 16.04.1990. Vide order dated 01.06.1990, the Assessing Authority maintained the ratable value of the flat at Rs. 47,390/- w.e.f. 28.11.1990 on the ground that the actual rent received was outside the purview of the DRC Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge u/s 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the Assessing Authority on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to get property assessed u/s 6 of the DRC Act, even if the property in question was beyond the purview of the said Act, after the amendment carried out w.e.f. 01.12.1988.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Delhi Paints and Chemicals Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Another, . In the aforesaid judgment, it was held by the Division Bench that nothing in the DRC Act shall apply to any premises, whether residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500/-. It was clarified that where there is no letting, the question of monthly rent exceeding Rs. 3,500/- would not arise. In that case, provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 9(4) of the DRC Act would continue to apply and so also the principles as laid down in the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor and Others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others, and Dr. Balbir Singh and Others Vs. M.C.D. and Others, , would continue to apply.

Guided by the aforesaid judgments, the inevitable conclusion is that in the present case, the Assessing Authority was justified in holding that as the property in question was fetching rent of more than Rs. 3,500/- per month for the relevant assessment year, the same fell outside the purview of the DRC Act as amended w.e.f. 01.12.1988 and hence, the provisions of Section 6 of the DRC Act could not apply.

In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.01.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The assessment order dated 01.06.1990 is maintained. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.