D. K. KAPUR J. ( 1 ) (ORAL ). In this case the plaintiff filed a suit to challenge the legality and validity of the assessment of house tax for the year 1968-69 in respect of the ground floor of House No. 38, situated in Jor Bagh Nursery, New Delhi. The house tax had been fixed for the assessment year 1966-67 in accordance with the rent which was actually being fetched in respect of the property and the Municipality had merely adopted the same basis for tax in the year 1968-69. It was claimed by the plaintiff that in the previous year the property had been let out to tenants and the rent being fetched was Rs. 850 per month. Before 1st April, 1968, the tenants were claimed to have left and, thereafter, the property was in self occupation. The claim of the plaintiff was that the assessment could not be made on the basis of the rent being fetched in the previous year. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The decision of the Additional Senior Subjudge who decided the appeal is to the following effect:- "the annual value has been determined on the basis of actual rent although there was no actual rent received in the year 1968-69. The court held once there is no annual value it follows that the assessment cannot be sustained . "the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge seems to have come to the view that because the property was in self occupation, therefore, no house-tax was to be imposed in relation to the property. It is quite cbvious that such a view cannot be sustained at all. ( 2 ) THE principle on which house-tax is to be collected by the Municipality is contained in Sec. 3 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 which defines annual value to mean in the case of any house or building; "the gross annual rent at which such house of building, together with its appurtenances and any furniture that may be let for use or enjoyment therewith, may reasonably be expected to let from year to year, subject to the following deductions etc. ," Thus, in calculating the annual value of any property the actual rent that is received from the tenant is not the criteria at all. ," Thus, in calculating the annual value of any property the actual rent that is received from the tenant is not the criteria at all. What has been to be determined is the amount of rent that might be fetched from the property if the property was let out. The provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponding to this section are Section 23 and subsequent sections. In Section 23 the annual value is defined thus :-- "for the purposes of Section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. "there have been many judgments both of the English and Indian courts as to how the annual value has to be determined and it has been very aptly stated in many of the judgments that what has to be seen is not the actual rent which is received from the tenant but the hypothetical rent which might be received from a hypothetical tenant if there was one. This view has been accepted in the judgment of Chagla C. J. and Bhagwati J. in Rangnath Khemraj V. Bai Thakorebai, A. I. R. (38) 1951 Bombay 430 (1) and was also accepted by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court as long ago as in Chhuna Mal Salig Ram of Delhi V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, A. I. R. 1931 Lahore 320 (2 ). In that case the Full Bench observed per majority view that "the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year is a notional amount and has nothing to do with the rent actually received by the owner. " ( 3 ) IT is these principles which have to be applied when a case like the present one is to be dealt with. We have in the year 1967, evidence that the property was let to a tenant and was fetching Rs. 850 per month. In the subsequent year it was not with a tenant but was self-occupied, thus no rent was received. However, the principle of notional rent and the principle of hypothetical tenant paying hypothetical rent has to be applied for the year 1968. 850 per month. In the subsequent year it was not with a tenant but was self-occupied, thus no rent was received. However, the principle of notional rent and the principle of hypothetical tenant paying hypothetical rent has to be applied for the year 1968. Thus, it has to be held that even in the year 1968 the housetax has to be determined on the assumption that the property could be let out to a tenant at the same rent as it had been let out in the previous year. Thus, according to the established principles for determining the annual value or rateable value, the same rateable value has to be fixed whether the property is occupied by a tenant or not. Consequently, there is no doubt that the standard for imposing the house-tax for the year 1967 would also apply for the year 1968, whether the property was occupied by a tenant or not at all, or occupied by the owner himself. The rateable value or annual value is not at all dependant on whether the property is in occupation of a tenant, or is vacant, or whether the property is occupied by the owner himself. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent relies on a passage set ut in the judgment of the Full Bench in Dewan Daulat Ram Kapur Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, I. L. R. 1973 (1) Delhi 363 (3), at page 381. The paragraph reads :-- "there may, however, be premises, which are not let and are occupied by the owner in the relevant year of assessment or premises which have never been let or premises which are newly constructed but not let and whose annual value is to be ascertained. Even for such premises, annual value will have to be arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act as held in the Guntur Municipality s case. "relying on this passage the learned counsel urges that as soon as the property became vacant and the tenant left, the Rent Control Act had to be applied and the cost of construction of the building had to be worked out by the Municipality. I do not understand this judgment to mean this at all. "relying on this passage the learned counsel urges that as soon as the property became vacant and the tenant left, the Rent Control Act had to be applied and the cost of construction of the building had to be worked out by the Municipality. I do not understand this judgment to mean this at all. In fact, such a meaning would be contrary to the recognised principle that the rateable value is the value at which the property would be expected to be let out from year to year. From year to year gives a continuity to the annual value; it is a value which ensures for several years and is not a value which changes from year to year because the tenant occupying the property has left or there is some other similar change in circumstances. This meaning is further given effect to in the same Full Bench judgment in a later passage where the Court said :- "in the case of premises not let in the year of assessment but let at any time previous to it, the annual value shall not exceed the standard rent if fixed earlier by the Controller or statutorily determined under the Delhi Rent Control Act and, in the absence, of such fixation or determination, the annual value shall not exceed the agreed rent in the earlier years. " ( 5 ) THE meaning of this passage is not very complex, it is; if the property has not been let out before then the sandard rent may have to be determined by the principles set out in the Rent Act. . If the standard rent has been determined earlier in some other way, it will in any case apply and, if the property has been let out earlier but the standard rent has not been fixed, then the agreed rent will be the annual value. Applying this passage to this judgment to the facts of this case it means that when we have to fix the annual rent for 1968, we are merely to see wnat was the agreed rent in the earlier year. As the agreed rent in that year was Rs. 850 per month, so this gives the annual value for the year 1968 also. As the agreed rent in that year was Rs. 850 per month, so this gives the annual value for the year 1968 also. ( 6 ) IN my view, a simpler way of stating the same thing is to say that the annual value once fixed in respect of a building hasto continue till it is altered in some recognisable manner. In this way, the annual value was fixed for 1967 and, therefore, this annual value is to continue for 1968. This result would follow whether the properly was let out or not. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the annual value for 1967 would also be the annual value for 1968. Some reference has been made to the Guntur Municipality s case,de- cided by the Supreme Court in Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers Association etc. . A. I R. 1971 Supreme Court 353 (4 ). In that case it was held that a Municipality could not fix the annual rent at an arbitrary rate and it has to be guided by the Rent Control Act. The Court held that thers Was no distinction between properly qua which the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent and other property. It was held that the Municipality should arrive at its own conclusion regarding the fair rent to be chargeable under the Rent Act. ( 7 ) ON this statement of the law, the learned counsel states that the Full Bench s decision in Dewan Daulat Ram Kapur s case does not seem to be correctly decided because it has stated that the agreed rent would be the annual value, when the Supreme Court judgment states that in any case the Municipality has to determine the fair rent under the Municipal Law. In my view, there is no difference between the Full Bench judgment and the Supreme Court judgment for all practical purposes. If the standard rent has been fixed, then the Supreme Court and the Full Bench both hold that the said standard rent will be deemed to be the fair rent irrespective of whether the landlord is in actual receipt of a lesser or smaller amount than the one allowed by the standard rent fixation. The other case is the one in which the standard rent has not been fixed. The other case is the one in which the standard rent has not been fixed. The Supreme Court seemed to indicate that the fair rent will have to be determined by the Municipal Authorities. The Full Bench judgment says that in the absence of fixation, the agreed rent can be taken to be the annual rent. I think, these two statements are not different from each other. The reason is that no person can charge more than the standard rent because of the application of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In fact, to receive rent greater than the standard rent is a criminal offence. Therefore, in the absence of proof to the contrary it has to be assumed that all rent received by the landlord is not in excess of the standard rent. The relevant sections in this respect are Section 5 which states that no person shall claim or receive any rent in excess of the standard rent; and Section 4 which states that rent in excess of standard rent shall not be recoverable. I may quote Section 4 (2), which reads :- "subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), any agreement for the payment of rent in excess of the standard rent shall be construed as if it were an agreement for the payment of the standard rent only. " ( 8 ) THE receipt of rent in excess of the standard rent is made punishable by Section 48 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which states that imprisonment for a term of three months may be imposed for breach of Section 5 (1), which is the section preventing recovery of rent above the standard rent. In view of this state of law, it has to be taken for granted that the rent recovered by the present owner of the property from his tenant in the previous year was in accordance with the standard rent. At least, it does not lie in the mouth of the house owner to contend that he was charging above the standard rent. It cannot be readily assumed that he was committing a criminal offence. Therefore, it would follow that the recovery of rent from the tenant @ Rs. 850 per month was not in excess of standard rent. At least, it does not lie in the mouth of the house owner to contend that he was charging above the standard rent. It cannot be readily assumed that he was committing a criminal offence. Therefore, it would follow that the recovery of rent from the tenant @ Rs. 850 per month was not in excess of standard rent. There is another provision in Section 6 (2) (b) which shows that in the case of premises constructed on or after 9th June 1955 the agreed rent shall be the standard rent for the period of five years. Assuring that the premises in the present case were constructed after June, 1955, the agreed rent would be the standard rent. In my view, even after the expiry of five years, the agreed rent would continue to be the standard rent until it is altered by an application to the Court. In fact, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, there is no way of altering the standard rent unless somebody approaches the Court with an application. It may also be observed that various Rent Control Acts have different methods for deciding what is the standard rent. In some cases the standard rent is fixed on the costs of construction; in some cases it is fixed on the rent as it existed some years ago and in some cases, the standard rent is fixed on some other basis. The Municipal Authorities cannot be expected to carry out an application of the standard rent to various situations, but have necessarily to accept the rent actually paid as standard rent unless some thing to the contrary is shown. In other words, if the landlord or the tenant applies to the court or contest the matter between them the standard rent may be fixed, otherwise, the agreed rent has to be considered the standard rent. It is only in the case where there is no tenant at all and never has been a tenant, i. e. the property is self-occupied from the very beginning or there is a property which has never been occupied by a tenant, that it becomes necessary for the Municipal Authorities to fix the standard rent. Therefore, I am of the view that even under the Delhi Rent Control Act and on the application of the principles set out in the Guntur Municipality s case the standard rent of the premises was Rs. Therefore, I am of the view that even under the Delhi Rent Control Act and on the application of the principles set out in the Guntur Municipality s case the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 850 per month and, therefore, the assessment made by the Municipal Authorities was correct. It was obviously correct also, because it if was correct in the previous year it would be automatically correct in the following years. The standard rent has necessarily to be the same in every year and does not vary from year toyear. ( 9 ) I just deal with one alternate situation which has been suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant, namely that the standard rent has to be fixed on the basis of Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act if the property is self-occupied. As can be seen from the section, this requires the proof of many different facts and if the authorities concerned find that it cannot fix the standard rent under Section 6, it can. fix the same under Section 9 and then will have to fix the rent in relation to the other premises in the locality. It cannot be expected that the Municipal Authorities should carry out this investigation when they have the proof that the tenant was, in fact, paying Rs. 850 per month which in law would be standard rent unless somebody contested the same. In my view, seen from all angles, the annual value was rightly calculated in the assessment year 1968-69 on the basis of the annual value for the previous year. The appeal has, therefore, to be accepted and the judgment of the Senior Sub-Judge is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is restored. Parties to bear their own costs. ( 10 ) THE Municipal Authorities may give the respondent some reasonable time to make the payment for this year, i. e. 1968-69. I am told that there are also some subsequent years. The payment may be made within two months.