Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is stated to be the owner of four buildings, Nos. 234, 235, 236 and 237, all situated in Ward IX of Kodungallur Municipality. The 1st respondent is the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kodungallur; the 2nd respondent is the Municipal Council, Kodungallur; and the 3rd respondent is the State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Local Administration & Social Welfare (B) Department, Trivandrum. 2. Prior to 1st August 1977, on which date Kodungallur Municipality came into being, the petitioner's buildings referred to above were assessed to property tax by the erstwhile Lokamaleswaram Panchayat which was the Panchayat in which the buildings were comprised before the Panchayat became part of the Kodungallur Municipality. The 1st respondent Commissioner completed the assessment of the petitioner's buildings under S.100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (the Act), and intimation was given to the petitioner with respect to that. It is not necessary to state the annual value of the income and the half yearly tax fixed for each of the building. It would be suffice to say that the petitioner's case is that the assessment made in Exts. P-6 to P-9, confirmed in appeal in Exts. P-14 to P-18, had no relevance to the previous assessment made by the Panchayat or to the standard rent that could be fixed for the buildings in question. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is contended inter alia in Para.15 that assessments were made strictly in compliance with, the provisions of S.100 of the Act and the provisions contained in Schedule II; the minimum rent that would be receivable if the buildings were let out was fixed as the annual value; assessments made on similar buildings at the same time have been accepted by the respective owners; assessment books kept in the Municipal Office contained the details of buildings and the basis on which assessments were made; they were open to inspection by the petitioner; and in the above circumstances the petitioner could not contend that the details were not disclosed to him. 4. 4. After decision of the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor & others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & others ((1980) 1 S.C.C. 685) it is not open to the Municipality or the Corporation governed by the Municipalities Actor the Corporation Act to fix the annual rental value of the property taxed on any basis other than the standard rent that might be payable in accordance with the principle laid down in the Rent Control Act. Therein the Supreme Court observed in paragraphs as follows: "Ordinarily we would have examined the validity of this argument first on principle and then turned to the authorities, but we propose to reverse this order because the decisions in (he Life Insurance Corporation Case ((1970) 2 S.C.C. 44) and Guntur Municipal Council Case ((1970) 2 SCC. 803) completely cover the present controversy and do not have any scope for further argument. Now undoubtedly there is some difference in the provisions of the two statutes but this difference is not of such a character as to affect the applicability of "the decision in the Life Insurance Corporation case, because in that case too, the prohibition against the landlord to receive any rent in excess of the standard rent was operative only after the fixation of the standard rent by the Controller and so long as the standard rent was not fixed, it was not unlawful or penal for the landlord to receive any rent in excess of the standard rent. If the standard rent though not fixed and hence not legally enforceable, could provide the measure for the reasonable expectation of the landlord to receive rent from a hypothetical tenant in the Life Insurance Corporation case, there is no reason why it should not equally be held to provide such measure in the present cases; as in the one case so also in the other. The upper limit of the standard rent, though yet to be fixed by the Controller, would enter into the determination of the reasonable rent ...He is required to fix the standard rent in accordance with the relevant, formula laid down in S.6 and he cannot ignore that formula by saying that in the circumstances of the case, he considers it reasonable to do so. The only discretion given to him is to make adjustments in the result arrived at on the application of the relevant formula, where it is necessary to do so by reason of the fact that the landlord might have made some addition, alteration or improvement in the building or circumstances might have transpired affecting the condition or utility of the building or some such circumstances of similar character... The amount calculated in accordance with the relevant formula set out in S.6 would, therefore, ordinarily represent the standard rent of the building, unless the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, can persuade the Controller that there are circumstances requiring adjustment in the amount so arrived at." So far as Kerala is concerned, instead of S.6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the provision that would be applicable would be S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 5. The position being beyond any doubt, the writ petition is allowed quashing Exts. P6 to P9 and P14 to P18 without prejudice to the right of respondents 1 and 2 to proceed to fix the tax on the basis of the standard rent that might be arrived at in accordance with the provisions contained in S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. Tax, if any paid in excess of the tax that might be fixed after arriving at the standard rent would be refunded to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.