JUDGMENT
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi who while accepting appeal of the respondents has, inter alia, fixed the ratable value of the property bearing No. 10196/65, M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi.
2. The respondents are joint owners of the property bearing No 10196/65, M.M. Road, Motia Khan, Delhi and the same was assessed at a ratable value of Rs. 36,740/- for the year 1978-79. It appears that the respondents let out the first and second floors of the property at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,712.10 with effect from 1.10.1978 and the basement at Rs 6,000/- per month with effect from 1.2.1979. Consequently, the Assessing Authority issued notice (Annexure A) to the respondents proposing a ratable value of Rs. 1,58,350/- for the year 1978-79. Objections (Annexure B) were filed against the proposed enhancement of the ratable value. On 24.9.1982, the Assessing Authority passed the order (Annexure C) revising the ratable value to Rs. 1,58,350/- as proposed Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed appeal before the A.D.J. who While accepting the appeal fixed the ratable value of the property at Rs. 36,740/-.
3. The learned A.D.J. has set aside the assessment order (Annexure C) on the ground that since the standard rent under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act has not been determined in respect of the property in question, ratable value of the tenanted portion of the property can’t be fixed on the basis of agreed rent and the ratable value fixed earlier shall be deemed to have been fixed on the basis of standard rent under Section 9(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In my opinion, the view taken by the Additional District Judge runs counter to the well established principles of determining ratable value of a property. It is well settled that in respect of a building subject to rent control legislation the landlord cannot claim to recover from the tenant anything more than the standard rent and his reasonable expectation must therefore be limited by the measure of the standard rent recoverable by him, and respect of a building not subject to any such rent control legislation, the actual rent payable by a tenant to the landlord would reliable evidence of what the landlord reasonably expect to get from a hypothetical tenant. (Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC, (1990) 1 SCC 685; Dr. Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., Asstt. G.M., Central Bank of India v. Commissioner Municipal Council . Now the question is : what would be the standard rent of the tenanted portion of the premises in question determinable under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control for the assessment year 1978-79. “Standard rent” is defined in Section 2(k) to mean the standard rent referred to in section 6 or where the standard rent has been increased under Section 6, such increased rent. Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act lays down different formulae for determination of standard rent according to different situations. The provisions applicable for determination of standard rent in the case of residential premises are set out in Clause (A) of Sub-section (1) and there also I am concerned only with Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) because first and second floors of the premises were let out for the first time on 1.10.1978 and the basement was let out for the first time on 1.12.1979 and, therefore, under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent of Rs. 7,712.10 p. per month would be the standard rent of the first, second floors of the premises in question for the period of five years form 1.10.1978 for the assessment year in question. The basement was let out on 1.12.1979 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- and therefore under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6, of Sub-section (2) of Section 6, the rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month would be the standard rent of the basement for the period of 5 years, from 1.12.1979 for the assessment year in question. (Sheila Kaushik v. I.T. Commissioner, Delhi ).
4. In this case, the Assessing Authority had rightly assessed the petitioner on the basis of the agreed rent which under Clause (b) of Sub-sec-tion (2) of section 6, shall be deemed to be the standard rent of the tenanted portion of the premises in question for a period of five years and the contrary view taken by the learned Additional District Judge with regard to non-applicability of the aforesaid provision is wholly erroneous. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge has committed a patent illegality in setting aside the ratable value determined by the Assessing Authority with regard to the tenanted portion of the premises in question.
5. So far as determination of the ratable value of self-occupied portion of the premises is concerned the Assessing Authority has committed a grave error in fixing the same under Sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Delhi Rent control Act. In the case of Balbir Singh (supra) it was held that the ratable value of a building, whether tenanted or self-occupied, is limited by the measure of standard rent arrived at by the Assessing Authority by applying laid down in Section 6, and Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of D.R. Act will be attracted only if it is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set out in Section 6. It therefore follows that the standard rent even in cases of self-occupied premises has to be determined on the principles set out in Section 6 and that would constitute the upper limit of the ratable value of the premises. Having determined such upper limit the Assessing Authority may in appropriate cases scale down the same by taking into account the size situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein.
6. In the instant case the Assessing Authority has not assessed the premises in question, on the basis of standard rent determinable on the principles set out in Section 6. On the contrary, ratable value of the said portion of the premises has been assessed under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In Dr. Balbir Singh’s case (supra), it was held that” it is only where for any reason, it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set forth in Section 6 that the standard rent may be fixed under Sub-section (4) of Section 9. The relevant paragraph of the judgment for the sake of ready reference is as under:
“It is indeed strange that Assessing Authorities should have declined to assess the ratable value of 494 properties in South Delhi on the basis of standard rent determinable on the principles laid down in Sub-section (1) (A)(2)(b) of Section 6 merely on the ground that in the opinion of the Assessing Authorities “the assessees failed to produce the documentary evidence as regards the aggregate amount of reasonable cost of construction and the market price of land comprised in the premises on the date of commencement of the construction.” If the assessees failed to produce the documentary evidence to establish the reasonable cost of construction of the premises or the market price of the land comprised in the premises, the Assessing Authorities could arrive at their own estimate of these two constituent items in the application of the principles set out in Sub-section (1)(A)(2)(b) or (1)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6. But on this account the Assessing Authorities could not justify resort to Sub-section (4) of Section 9. It is only where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set-forth in Section 6 that the standard rent may be fixed under Sub-section (4) of Section 9 and merely because the owner does not produce satisfactory evidence showing what was the reasonable cost of construction of the premises or the market price of the land at the date of commencement of the construction, it cannot be said that it is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set out in Sub-section (1)(A)(2)(b) or (1)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6. Take for example a case where the owner produces evidence which is found to be incorrect or which does not appear to be satisfactory; can the Assessing Authorities in such a case resort to sub-section (4) of Section 9 stating that it is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set out in Sub-section (1)(A)(2)(b) or (1)(B)(2)(b) of Section 6 ? The Assessing Authorities would obviously have to estimate for themselves, on the basis of such materials as may be gathered by them, the reasonable cost of construction and the market price of the land and arrive at their own determination of the standard rent. The is an exercise with which the Assessing Authorities are quite familiar and it is not something unusual for them or beyond their competence and capability. It may be noted that even while fixing standard rent under Sub-section (4) of Section 9, the Assessing Authorities have to rely on such material as may available with them and determine the standard rent on the basis of such material by a process of estimation.”
7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 18.5.1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi is hereby set aside. The assessment order dated 24.9.1982 of the Assessing Authority so far as it relates to the assessment of self-occupied portion of the premises in question is set aside. The Assessing Authority shall proceed to assess the rateable value of self-occupied portion of the premises in question afresh in accordance with the principles laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case (supra). No order as to costs.