Jagjit Singh, J.:— This revision, purporting to be under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the order dated May 22, 1965 passed by Shri J.S Mander, Additional District Judge in an appeal under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation Act”).

At first the revision was placed for hearing before Safeer, J. The learned Judge, however, referred the case to a larger Bench and that is how it came to be heard by us.

A single storey property, No. 474 /Part XVIII, Nai Basti, Delhi, belongs to the petitioner, Shri Gauri Shankar Gupta, and was assessed to property tax on the rateable value of Rs. 2,031/-. By a notice dated May 31, 1963, under section 124 of the Corporation Act, the Assistant Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation informed the petitioner that in the assessment list prepared for the year 1963-64 an entry had been made showing the rateable value at Rs. 6,370/- and if he had any objection to the entry then he could submit his objections in writing on or before July 10, 1963.

On July 8, 1963 Shri Gupta filed objections alleging that the proposed increase was arbitrary and illegal. It was stated by him that the assessment should have been made on the basis of rent actually payable to him by the tenants.

There is no dispute that the out-houses comprising of seven rooms had been let out to different tenants at Rs. 10/- per room. The remaining portion of the property was let out to Messrs Pure Pharmaceutical Works and in connection with an application of the landlord for fixation of standard rent an Additional Rent Controller, on January 15, 1960, fixed the interim rent at Rs. 175/- per month. According to the petitioner the standard rent has not been fixed even uptill now.

On November 18, 1963 the Assistant Assessor and Collector, while exercising the powers of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, determined the rateable value at Rs. 4,360/- with effect from April 1, 1963. The relevant portion of the order passed by him was as under:—

“Shri G.S Gupta is present and is heard. Details of accommodation shown in Form ‘B’ are admitted. Property is entirely rented. The portion occupied by M/s. Pharmaceutical Work is on concessional rent which cannot be treated as fair rent.

Hence R. V. is fixed as under on the basis of rents prevalent in the area shown by the S.I and as per list attached.

1. Rent admitted for 7 rooms @ Rs. 70 P.M Rs. 760/- w.e.f 1-4-63 2. Rent for the portion occupied by M/s Pure Pharmaceutical Works. Area 4228 S. ft. @ Rs. 6/- p.m 100 s. ft. Rs. 253.68 np. 3. Rent for the open land measuring 2000 sq. yard @ 5% of the cost of land. Rs. 3,600/- w.e.f 1-4-63 Cost of land calculated at Rs. 7/- per yard as allowed for compensation. Rs. 70/- 323.68”

So far as the portion of the property let out to Messrs Pure Pharmaceutical Works was concerned the Assistant Assessor and Collector considered that it was on concessional rent which could not be treated as fair rent. He, therefore, proceeded to fix the rateable value on the basis of rent prevalent in the locality by relying upon a statement of rents prepared by an Inspector for some other commercial properties. For 4,288 square feet rent was assessed at Rs. 253.68 per month at the rate of Rs. 6/- per 100 square feet. Rent for 2,000 square yards of open land was calculated at 5% of the cost of the land at Rs. 70/- per month.

Being dissatisfied with the increase made in the rateable value of the property for the year 1963-64 the petitioner filed an appeal to the court of the District Judge of Delhi. The then District Judge, Shri P. P.R Sawhney, transferred the appeal for disposal to the Additional District Judge. On hearing the appeal the Additional District Judge held that the method adopted for calculating the rateable value at flat rates was not a recognised method and the annual rent for which any property might reasonably be expected to be let out from year to year could not be more than the standard rent. The interim rent for the portion other than the out-houses having been fixed at Rs. 175/- per month the increase in the rateable value on the basis of imaginary rent of Rs. 323.68 per month for that portion was regarded unjustified. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the order for assessing the property tax at the enhanced rateable value was set aside.

Section 116 of the Corporation Act provides as to how rateable value of any land or building assessable to property tax is to be determined. It is as follows:—

“116. (1) The rateable value of any land or building assessable to property taxes shall be the annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year less —

(a) a sum equal to ten per cent of the said annual rent which shall be in lieu of all allowances for costs of repairs and insurance, and other expenses, 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, for the purpose of this section the rent shall be treated as inclusive of water tax on reteable 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, the rateable value thereof shall not exceed the annual amount of the standard rent so fixed.

(2) The rateable value of any land which is not built upon but is capable of being built upon and of any land on which a building is in process of erection shall be fixed at five per cent of the estimated capital value of such land.

(3) All plant and machinery contained or situate in or upon any land or building and belonging to any of the classes specified from time to time by public notice by the Commissioner with the approval of the Standing Committee, shall be deemed to form part of such land or building for the purpose of determining the rateable value thereof under sub-section (1) but save as aforesaid no account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery contained or situated in or upon any such land or building.”

Against the levy or assessment of any tax under the Corporation Act an appeal is provided to the Court of the District Judge of Delhi by section 169. Sub-section (2) of that section also permits a reference to be made to the High Court if before or on the hearing of an appeal any question of law or usage having the force of law or construction of a document arises. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days provided by section 170. Section 171 attaches finality to the appellate orders, though the Court of appeal can, upon application or on its own motion, review any order passed by it within three months from the date of the order.

As no revision to the High Court is provided by the Corporation Act it was urged by Shri R.N Tikku, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, that the revision may be treated as a petition under article 227 of the Constitution. It was also contended by him that it was a fit case for interference under the provisions of article 227 on account of an error of law being apparent on the face of the record.

Here it may be mentioned that according to the learned single Judge one of the matters involved in the case was the power of the District Judge to transfer the appeal for disposal to an Additional District Judge. It, however, appears that section 460 of the Corporation Act was not brought to his Lordship's notice. That section, inter alia, provides that the court of the District Judge of Delhi may “delegate, either generally or specially, to the court of an additional district Judge, power to receive applications, appeals and references under the Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law made thereunder, and to hear and determine such applications, appeals and references”. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been transferred by the court of the District Judge of Delhi to the court of the Additional District Judge, the Additional District Judge was beyond doubt competent to dispose it of. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner did not question the competence of the Additional District Judge to decide the appeal.

The only contention which, therefore, survives for consideration is as to whether there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order of the appellate court the amount of enhanced rateable value was mentioned to be Rs. 6,370/- and not Rs. 4,360/-. That is true but it was obviously a mistake. It appears that as in the notice under section 124 of the Corporation Act the proposed rateable value for the year 1963-64 was stated to be Rs. 6,370/- the appellate court in its order mentioned the same figure to be the amount of enhanced rateable value. But mere mention of a wrong figure of the enhanced rateable value does not mean that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The extent of enhancement was not material for purposes of the appeal as the case merely involved the correctness or otherwise of the method employed for determining the rateable value.

In the Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association Etc, 1970 (2) S.C.C (803) (1), the matter which came up for consideration was whether before the fixation of fair rent of any premises the Guntur Municipality was bound to make assessment in the light of the provisions contained in the Rent Acts. Sub-section (2) of section 82 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, which was applicable, provided that annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to let from month to month or from year to year less certain deductions. It was held that the test essentially was what rent the premises could lawfully fetch if let out to a hypothetical tenant and that the Municipality was thus not free to assess any arbitrary annual value but had to look to and was bound by the fair or the standard rent which would be payable for a particular premises under the Rent Act in force during the year of assessment. The contention that so long as the fair rent of a building or premises was not fixed the assessment of valuation by a Municipality need not be limited or governed by the measure provided by the provisions of the rent act for determination of fair rent was not accepted. In that connection the following observations were made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court:—

“We are unable to agree that on the language of Section 82 (2) of the Municipalities Act any distinction can be made between buildings the fair rent of which has been actually fixed by the Controller and those in respect of which no such rent has been fixed. It is perfectly clear that the landlord cannot lawfully expect to get more rent than the fair rent which is payable in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act. The assessment of valuation must take into account the measure of fair rent as determinable under the Act. It may be that where the Controller has not fixed the fair rent the municipal authorities will have to arrive at their own figure of fair rent but that can be done without any difficulty by keeping in view the principles laid down in Section 4 of the Act for determination of fair rent. This would of course be with regard to the assessment of valuation for the period subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. For the prior period it would be the Rent Act in force during the year of assessment in the light of the provisions of which the figure of the fair rent would have to be determined and assessment made accordingly.”

It was further laid down that the law was well settled that the assessment of valuation for the purposes of tax must be made in accordance with and in the light of the provisions of the rent act which would be in force during the period of assessment. Reference was as well made to the case of the Corporation of Calcutta v. Shrimati Padma Devi and others, 1962 (3) S.C.R 49 (2) in which the view taken was that on a fair reading of the provisions of section 127-A of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 the annual rent could not be fixed higher than the standard rent under the Rent Control Act.

The provisions of section 82 (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act are substantially in the same terms as section 116 (1) of the Corporation Act. The rateable value, like annual value under section 82 (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, is, therefore, to be assessed on the annual rent at which the land or building might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year less certain deductions. In respect of the portion in occupation of Messrs Pure Pharmaceutical Works, including the vacant land, no standard rent has so far been fixed. The interim rent fixed by an Additional Rent Controller regarding that portion was Rs. 175/- per month. The seven rooms of the out-houses were fetching rent of Rs. 70/- per month only. As the landlord cannot be lawfully expected to get more than the standard rent the assessment of rateable value by the Municipal Corporation should have taken into account the measure of standard rent as determinable under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) by keeping in view the principles laid down in the said Act for fixation of standard rent. The method of flat rates adopted was not in conformity with the provisions of Act No. 59 of 1958 and the enhancement made in the valuation could not, therefore, be sustained irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the amount assessed. The learned Additional District Judge was, it seems to us, justified in accepting the appeal and setting aside the enhancement made in the rateable value of the property. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the appellate court even if the revision filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation can be treated to be a petition under article 227 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter it is unnecessary to go into the question whether or not the revision can be treated as a petition under article 227 of the Constitution.

For the reasons given above the petition filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation is dismissed with costs. The counsel fee shall be assessed at Rs. 100/-.

Petition dismissed.