( 1 ) ORDER:- In these four writ petitions the petitioner has challenged the assessment orders made by the Delhi Municipal Corporation determining the annual rateable value in respect of property Vishal Cinema situated at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. ( 2 ) SINCE facts in all the four writ petitions are identical and common arguments were addressed by the learned counsel, it will be sufficient to deal with the facts in C. W. No. 705 of 1972. ( 3 ) THE petitioner company holds a plot of land given to it on perpetual lease by the Delhi Municipal Corporation. In the year 1969 the petitioner constructed a commercial building including a cinema on the said plot. The petitioner carries on the business of exhibition of films. The portion of the building was occupied by the petitioner for its business on 20th June, 1970. ( 4 ) ON 27th March, 1971 the respondents, Delhi Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner under S. 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which was received by the petitioner on 7th April, 1971. By the said notice the respondent proposed to increase the rateable value of the said property from Rs. 51,000/- to Rs. 3,65,520/- for the assessment year 1970-71 i. e. to take effect from 20th June, 1970. By letter dated 8th April, 1971 the petitioner replied to the said notice and objected to the proposed enhancement, inter alia, on the grounds that the rateable value as assessed was exhorbitant, the notice was beyond time and also that the basis on which the fresh rateable value was assessed was not disclosed to the petitioner. Thereafter, another letter was sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 3rd May, 1971 and 10th June, 1971. Since the accounts of the petitioner were not complete along with the letter dated 10th June, 1971, the petitioner sent the prescribed pro forma giving the approximate cost of construction and other details. According to the petitioner, another letter was sent on 16th August, 1971 which contained all the details regarding cost of construction etc. The respondent has denied the receipt of this letter in C. W. No. 705 of 1972, however, have admitted having received a letter dated 8th August, 1971 in C. W. 694 of 1974. According to the petitioner, another letter was sent on 16th August, 1971 which contained all the details regarding cost of construction etc. The respondent has denied the receipt of this letter in C. W. No. 705 of 1972, however, have admitted having received a letter dated 8th August, 1971 in C. W. 694 of 1974. The petitioners were given personal hearing, but it is alleged by the petitioners that their objections given in the letter dated 16th August, 1971 were not considered. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the assessment order is bad as not being according to law. The objections of the petitioner were not taken into consideration by the respondent while arriving at the rateable value and the rateable value as assessed is exorbitant. It was further contended that for the assessment year 1970-71 notice regarding enhancement was not given during the prescribed time. It was further contended that the basis on which the enhanced rateable value was arrived at was not furnished to the petitioner till 3rd August, 1971 and, therefore, only on 16th August, 1971 proper objection could be filed. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent has not given the statutory deductions, vacancy remissions and also nor ascertained what would be the reasonable rent the petitioner would expect to get from a hypothetical tenant. It was submitted that the contractors Test or contractors Method applied by the assessing authority is wrong. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that though the order mentions that the assessment was being done on contractors Method in effect the rateable value was fixed by determining the standard rent calculated on the basis of the total cost of construction as given by the petitioner. ( 7 ) I find that the assessing authority in its order dated 30th March, 1972 has held that it is not possible to calculate the hypothetical rent and has admittedly adopted the contractors Method or contractors Test . The assessing authority arrived at the annual letting value after taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of interest at which money could have been borrowed and taking into account the status and position of the petitioner. The assessing authority arrived at the annual letting value after taking into consideration the prevailing market rates of interest at which money could have been borrowed and taking into account the status and position of the petitioner. ( 8 ) UNDER S. 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the rateable value of any land or building assessable to property tax is to be calculated on the basis of annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably expected to be let out from year to year. The Supreme Court in the case of Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR 1980 SC 541 has held that where the rent of the building is subject to Rent Control Legislation the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to receive anything more than the standard rent from a hypothetical tenant and the annual letting value of the building cannot therefore exceed the standard rent determinable under the Rent Act. The assessing authority would have to arrive at its own figure of the standard rent by complying the principles laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for determination of the standard rent and determine the annual letting value of the building on the basis of such figures of standard rent. ( 9 ) IN Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1985) 1 SCC 167 . the Supreme Court while considering the question of determination of rateable value in respect of non-residential premises self-occupied by the owner has held that the standard rent determinable under the provisions of sub-sec. (1) (B) (2) (b) of S. 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act would constitute the upper limit of the rateable value. The Supreme Court in this case while reiterating the principle laid down in Dewan Daulat Rai s case (supra) that the rateable value of a building cannot exceed the measure of standard rent but it may in a given case be less than the standard rent having regard to the various attendant circumstances and considerations has observed as follows :- "the position in regard to the determination of rateable value of self-occupied residential and non-residential premises may thus be stated as follows: The standard rent determinable on the principles set out in sub-sec. 2 (a) or 2 (b) or (1) (a) (2) (b) or (1) (b) (2) (b) of S. 6, as may be applicable, would fix the upper limit of the rateable value of the premises and within such upper limit, the assessing authorities would have to determine as to what is the rent which the owner may reasonably expectto get if the premises are let to a hypothetical tenant and for the purpose of such determination, the assessing authorities would have to evaluate factors such as size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities therein provided. The assessing authorities would also have to take into account the rent which the owner of similar premises constructed earlier and situate in the same or adjoining locality, might reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant and which would necessarily be within the upper limit of the standard rent of such premises, so that there is no wide disparity between the rate of rent per square foot or square yard which the owner might reasonably expect to get in case of two premises. Some disparity is bound to be there on account of the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein. Bigger size beyond a certain optimum would depress the rate of rent and so also would less favourable situation on locality or lower quality of construction or unsatisfactory condition of the premises or absence of necessary amenities and similar other factors. But after taking into account these varying factors, the disparity should not be disproportionately large. " ( 10 ) IN Godhara Municipality v. Godhara Electricity Co. , AIR 1968 SC 1504 the Supreme Court approved the valuation on the capital basis because R. 4 (1) (b) of the Godhara Municipal Rules provided that the mode of valuation for the purposes of determining tax for municipal purposes shall be valued on the capital basis. The Supreme Court, therefore, in that case approved the contractors Method or the contractors Test as explained in Ryde on Rating (11th Edition) Chapter 20. ( 11 ) SINCE under S. 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the annual letting value has to be calculated on the basis of reasonable rent, the building might reasonably expected to be let out, the assessing authority was not right in adopting the contractors Method or the contractors Test . ( 11 ) SINCE under S. 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the annual letting value has to be calculated on the basis of reasonable rent, the building might reasonably expected to be let out, the assessing authority was not right in adopting the contractors Method or the contractors Test . The Market rate of interest and position and status of an assessee is not a relevant consideration while determining the standard rent. Even if similar building in the locality are not available for comparison for determining the actual rent which the petitioner may have received from a hypothetical tenant, it was necessary that the comparison was made with similar or nearly similar buildings in adjoining localities. The observations of the Supreme Court as reproduced above make it clear that while determining the standard rent of the premises the assessing authority would have to first determine what rent the owner may reasonably expect to get if the premises are let out to a hypothetical tenant after taking into consideration the size, situation, locality and conditions of the premises and the amenities therein provided. The standard rent determined on the principle set out in sub-sec. (1) (B) (2) (b) of S. 6 of the Rent Control Act would fix the upper limit. The assessing authority in the present case has not considered all these factors while determining the rateable value. The order dated 30th March, 1972, therefore, cannot stand. ( 12 ) THOUGH there is some dispute regarding the objections not having been filed by the petitioner or not having been received in time by the respondent, the letter dated 16th August, 1971 along with the pro forma duly filled in is annexed with C. W. 705 of 1972. Since the final accounts regarding cost of construction and other details are now available and the respondent has in any event to consider other factors as observed by the Supreme Court, I think it is in the interest of justice that the information and details furnished in Annexure-H to C. W. No. 705 of 1982 are also considered while determining the rateable value of the premises afresh. ( 13 ) IN view of above, I do not consider it necessary for the purposes of disposing of the present writ petitions to consider all other contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides. ( 13 ) IN view of above, I do not consider it necessary for the purposes of disposing of the present writ petitions to consider all other contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides. ( 14 ) I, therefore, quash the order dated 30th March, 1972 and remand the matter back to the Assessor and Collector of respondent No. 1 to determine the rateable value in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh s case, ( AIR 1985 SC 339 ) (supra) after giving opportunity to adduce evidence to parties. ( 15 ) AFTER rule nisi was issued, this Court on 22nd August, 1972 had passed ad interim order directing the petitioner to pay the property tax on the basis indicated in the said order. The petitioner, will continue to pay the property tax at that rate till the re-assessment is made. ( 16 ) THE assessment orders for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 which are challenged in C. W. 883 of 1973, C. W. 694 of 1974 and C. W. 791 of 1975 respectively are admittedly provisional. I, therefore, quash the orders dated 16th March, 1973, 22nd March, 1974 and 21st April, 1975 and direct that the assessment for these three years will also be done in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh (supra ). There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.