JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, remanding the matter to the Assessor and Collector for redetermination of the rateable value after giving proper notice to respondent No. 1 under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Act.
(2) On 22.3.1980 the Mcd gave a notice under Section 126 of the Dmc Act to Tara Apartments, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi, and to the different flat holders to whom the flats were allotted. Respondent’ No. I owns a two bed-room flat. He paid a sum of Rs. 87,245.00 as the cost of the flat and the same was allotted to him on 25.11.1979. In reply to the said notice dated 22.3.1980, respondent No. I informed the Mcd of the above facts. He further informed that the flat was let out on 25.11.1979 itself for the monthly rental of Rs. 800.00 . The Assessor and Collector fixed the rateable value for the year 1979-80 on that basis and at the rate of Rs. 860.00 per month from the year 1981 onwards.
(3) The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Adj was wrong in holding that no notice was served on respondent No. 1 under Section 126 of the Act. He further submits that Tara Apartments had not intimated the names of the persons to whom the flats were allotted and, therefore, the notice under Section 126 was issued both to Tara Apartments and the allotees of the flats. From the letter of respondent No. I himself it is clear that he was replying to the notice under Section 126 as he has quoted even the number of the notice and the date.
(4) We, therefore, hold that the requirement of Section 126 of the Dmc Act was complied with and the impugned order cannot be sustained-
(5) Admittedly the respondent No. I had let out the flat for Rs. 800.00 per month from 25.11.1979. Therefore, the standard rent for the purposes of the rateable value would be Rs. 800.00 per month for the first five years. The rateable value for the period subsequent to the first five years would be fixed according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh’s case, the cost of construction being Rs. 87,245.00 .
(6) The impugned order and the order of the Assessor and Collector are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessor and Collector for refixing the rateable value in the light of the observations made above.
(7) The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.