JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---These seven first appeals under section 218 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, raise a common question of law and can be disposed of conveniently by this common judgment. Appeals Nos. 422, 424, 426 and 427 of 1973 arise out of the fixation of the rateable value under section 154 of the Act in respect of the property bearing No. 2083, B Ward, Lokmanya Tilak Road, Bombay 400 022, while Appeals Nos. 423, 425 and 428 of 1973 arise out of the fixation of the rateable value of the property bearing No. 1541, B Ward, Street No. 7, Old Bengali Pura, Bombay 4000 03. The Appellants father was the original tenant of both these properties from 1942 onwards. Property bearing No. 2083 was purchased by the appellants on 28-8-1961, while the property bearing No. 1541 was purchased by the appellants on 9-9-1958. The rateable value of the property bearing No. 2083 was fixed at Rs. 1,750/- in the year 1961-62. It was raised to Rs. 7,270/- in the year 1962-63. It was again raised to Rs. 20,630/- in the year 1965-66. The appellants challenged this increase from Rs. 7,270/- to Rs. 20,630/- by an appeal to the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under section 217 of the Act. The said appeal was rejected and Appeal No. 424 of 1973 arises out of the same. Subsequents assessments of taxes for the years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 giving rise to Appeals Nos. 422 and 427 are based on the same valuation. According to the appellants, after the purchase of the property by them, their father continued to be the tenant of the premises and paid the same rent, which he was paying to the original owner of the property. According to the appellants, their father allowed some strangers to occupy the said premises on leave and licence basis. The fees or compensation received by their father from these stranger licensees cannot furnish basis for fixation of the rateable value of the property under consideration. According to the appellants, the property is very old and was already let out to the tenants before September, 1940. The appellants father himself was paying rent of these premises at Rs. 102/- in the year 1942 and continued to pay the same till 1953. The rent was increased to Rs. 117/- during the years 1954 to 1958. According to the appellants, the property is very old and was already let out to the tenants before September, 1940. The appellants father himself was paying rent of these premises at Rs. 102/- in the year 1942 and continued to pay the same till 1953. The rent was increased to Rs. 117/- during the years 1954 to 1958. It was finally increased to Rs. 123.21 during the year 1960-61. This, according to the appellants, can be the standard rent of the premises. Rateable value, according to the appellants, ought to be fixed by reference to this standard rent. 2. Similarly the rent of the property bearing No. 1541 is claimed to be Rs. 63.84 during the period from 1942 to 1962. There was no change whatsoever in the rent. The rateable value of the building in the year 1960-62 was fixed at Rs. 1,210/-. It was increased to Rs. 1,290/- in the year 1962-63. Earlier challenges to the said rateable value, no doubt, failed. Even so, according to the appellants, they are entitled to challenge the said rateable value as, according to the appellants, it cannot be fixed in disregard of the standard rent and which, according to the appellants, can under no circumstances be more than Rs. 63.84 Ps. The assessment of the rateable value by reference to what the licensees of the appellants father paid to the appellants father can never furnish any basis for fixation of the rateable value. 3. As stated earlier, this claim of the appellants was rejected by the Corporation as also by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in appeals. The validity of this assessment is challenged in all these appeals by the assessees. 4. Mr. G.R. Samant, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, contends that even if the appellants story that their father was the tenant till he died in the year 1970, is not accepted as true, and even if it is further assumed that licence fees or compensation is received by the appellants from the licensees, the Corporation under no circumstances is competent to assess the annual rateable value under section 154 of the Act by reference to such compensation amount received by the appellants. But, on the contrary, according to Mr. But, on the contrary, according to Mr. Samant, the rateable value shall have to be assessed by reference to what the standard rent of each one of these properties could be having regard to section 5(10) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). Mr. Samant strongly relied in support of his contention on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (New Delhi Municipal Committee v. M.N. Sci and Another)1. He also relied on some other cases to which reference is made in this judgment of New Delhi Municipal Committee. 5. In the case of New Delhi Municipal Committee (supra) the landlord was actually receiving rent to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month at the time when actually the rateable value thereof was assessed by the Municipal Committee on 11th February, 1966. However, it was found that earlier on 25th September, 1941, the fair rent came to be fixed at Rs. 170/- per month under the provisions of the New Delhi House Rent Control Order, 1939. The said fixation of fair rent was found to have continued unaltered and no fixation of fair rent or standard rent afrash in accordance with law had ever taken place. Under section 3(1)(a) of the relevant Punjab Municipal Act of 1911, "annual value" was defined to mean "the gross annual rent at which it may reasonably be expected to let from year to year". The contention of the Municipal Committee that fair rent will be irrelevant where landlord is found to have actually received the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month was over ruled by the Supreme Court in the following words : "Where a rent is higher than that which can be legally demanded by the landlord and actually paid by a tenant despits the fact that such violation of the restriction on rent chargeable by law is visited by penal consequences, the Municipal authorities cannot take advantage of this defiance of the law by landlord. Rating cannot operate as a mode of sharing the benefits of illegal rack-renting indulged in by landlord for whose activities the law prescribes condition punishment". Rating cannot operate as a mode of sharing the benefits of illegal rack-renting indulged in by landlord for whose activities the law prescribes condition punishment". The learned Judge further observed : "It is not the expectation of a landlord who takes the risk of prosecution and punishment which the violation of the law involves, out the expectation of the landlord who is prudent enough to abide by the law that serves as the standard of reasonableness for purposes of rating." Under the relevant Rent Control enactment in force in Delhi, it was not permissible for the landlord to receive rent in excess of the fair rent. It is not in dispute that leases of the building in dispute are regulated by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 7 prohibits the landlord from accepting any rent in excess of the standard rent. Compensation received by the appellants father from the licensees allegedly kept in the premises by the father can be easily assumed to have been actually received by the appellants themselves. This assumption, however, cannot be of any assistance to the respondent Corporation. Even if this compensation is treated as rent, as Mr. Gavaskar, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, wants us to hold, the same on the face of it appears to be in excess of the standard rent, as defined in section 5(10)(b) of the Rent Act. The appellants have produced a number of rent receipts of both the buildings for the period from 1942 onwards. The learned Additional Chief Judge has referred to the same as Exhibits C, D and E in Appeal No. 59 of 1971 before him and Exhibit B in Appeal No. 59 of 1971. We have ourselves looked into these receipts. The appellants witness has testified to the genuineness thereof in his evidence before the learned Additional Chief Judge. There is no evidence in rebuttal. We have no reason whatsoever to doubt the authenticity thereof. It is true that these receipts do not show what the rent of the buildings could be on the 1st day of September, 1940. It can, however, be safely assumed that rent on the 1st of September, 1940 could not more under any circumstances than the rent of the same in the year 1942-43. It is true that these receipts do not show what the rent of the buildings could be on the 1st day of September, 1940. It can, however, be safely assumed that rent on the 1st of September, 1940 could not more under any circumstances than the rent of the same in the year 1942-43. It is not suggested that the area of the premises was in any manner different from the one that was found, when the premises were purchased by the appellants or at the time when the assessment was made by the respondent Corporation. The standard rent of the property bearing No. 2083, therefore, must be taken to be Rs. 123.21 in the year 1960-61 and that of property bearing No. 1541 to be Rs. 63.84. In view of the ratio of the above Supreme Court judgment, it was not open for the Corporation to consider what the appellants were receiving from their licencess, even if the amount so received is held to be the rent and not compensation. The appellants were obviously receiving such amounts from the actual occupants in defiance of the provisions of section 7 of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 7 prohibits landlord from recovering anything in excess of the standard rent as defined under section 5(10)(b) of the Rent Act and the permitted increases therein. This amount could only be Rs. 123.21 per month and Rs. 63.84 per month respectively. The Corporation was bound to fix the rateable value only on this basis. The learned Additional Chief Judge could not have ignored this basis in view of the material placed before him. 6. Mr. Gavaskar is right in contending that no standard rent was ever fixed under section 11 of Rent Act in respect of any of these two buildings. But that by itself cannot relieve the authorities under the Act from considering the relevant material placed before it. Section 154 of the Act requires finding for which amount the building could have been let out reasonably. It is this standard of reasonableness that makes evidence of standard rent relevant in the assessment proceedings and actual income of the landlord irrelevant. This is what the above judgments lay down. In this case the assessee did produce a number of rent receipts adverted to earlier indicating what the standard rent of the premises could be. It is this standard of reasonableness that makes evidence of standard rent relevant in the assessment proceedings and actual income of the landlord irrelevant. This is what the above judgments lay down. In this case the assessee did produce a number of rent receipts adverted to earlier indicating what the standard rent of the premises could be. In view of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in New Delhi Municipal Committee case (supra), the rateable value of the properties could be based on the said standard rent, and not on any other foundation whatsoever. 7. Mr. Gavaskar then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Smt. Ratnaprabha)2. Suffice it to note that the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were dealing with a property which was not occupied by any tenant whatsoever. It appears to have been never let out at all. Secondly, section 138(b) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act providing for the fixation of the annual rateable value of any building itself contained non obstante clause indicating that mode of valuation contained therein would prevail notwithstanding "anything contained in any other law for the time being in force". It is on the basis of this non obstante clause and the nature of occupancy which was not found to have been let out at any time that the Supreme Court thought it proper to record a departure from its ratio laid down in New Delhi Municipal Committee case (supra), and several other cases referred to in that case as also in Municipal Corporation, Indore case. 8. The result is that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the rateable value assessment made by the respondent Corporation and confirmed by the learned Additional Chief Judge are liable to be set aside. The respondent Corporation is directed to fix the rateable value on the basis of the standard rent of the two buildings in question as indicated above. 9. Appeals allowed with costs. Costs to be assessed in one set. -----