B. N. Kirpal, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order ofthe Additional District Judge, Delhi, who had allowed the appeal of the respondents filed under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent No. 1 is the ownerof the house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. In respect of the year 1984-85 theassessor and Collector vide his order dated 7/01/1987 fixed the rateablevalue at Rs86,670. 00w. e. f. 1st November, 1984 and Rs. 1,13,470. 00 w. e. f. 1/02/1985. In arriving at this value the Assessor and Collector took intoconsideration the cost of land and the cost of construction as well as the rentwhich was received for the part of the building which had been let out. Theconstruction, in the instant case, had commenced in the year 1981. The Assessor and Collector took the market price of the land to be Rs. 1800 per sq. mtr. In arriving at the cost of the construction he applied the C P. W. D. rates. Theaccessor and Collector further found that the net rent which was received by therespondents was Rs. 4428. 00 per month. He also noted that the respondents hadreceived security deposit of Rs. 45,000. 00 and he then made an addition of Rs. 450. 00 per month, to the actual rent being received, by holding that this sum ofrs. 450. 00 per month was by way of interest on the security deposit. ( 3 ) AN appeal was filed and the Additional Distt. Judge. Delhi vide orderdated 19/10/1988 allowed the same. He came to the conclusion onthe basis of a circular issued by the D. D. A. where the land in question hadbeen valued at Rs. 940. 00 per sq. mtr. , that the said rate should be adopted instead of Rs. 1800. 00 per sq. mtr. The Additional District Judge further held thatthe Assessor and Collector should not have rejected the valuation report arbitrarily and if he was not satisfied then another valuation report should have beenobtained under Section 135 of the D. M. C. Act. The contention of therespondents herein against the addition of Rs. 450. 00 per month was alsoaccepted. ( 4 ) IN the present writ petition it is submitted by learned counsel forthe petitioner that the aforesaid decision of the Additional District Judge isincorrect. The contention of therespondents herein against the addition of Rs. 450. 00 per month was alsoaccepted. ( 4 ) IN the present writ petition it is submitted by learned counsel forthe petitioner that the aforesaid decision of the Additional District Judge isincorrect. ( 5 ) OUR attention has been drawn to a judgment of a Division Bench ofthis Court In C. W. P. No. 438 of 1988, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. K. P. Gupta, decided on 26/04/1980. That case was also concerned with landin Vasant Vihar. Guidelines have been laid down by the Division Bench andthe matter has been remanded to the Assessor and Collector for fresh determination of the market value of the land in accordance with the said guidelines. Following the aforesaid decision, we also hold that the Assessor and Collectorshould value the land afresh as on 1/08/1981. ( 6 ) AS regards the cost of construction is concerned, in view of the factthat the case is being remanded for fresh valuation in respect of the land, itwould, in our opinion, be appropriate that the Assessor and Collector determinesthe cost of construction afresh. It will be open to the respondent to produceevidence showing his cost of construction. In such circumstances it is notnecessary to rely wholly on the valuation reports because the owner should beable to show, ordinarily, as to how much money has been spent in theconstruction of the house. Of course if the Assessor and valuer comes to theconclusion, on the basis of some cogent evidence and material facts, that valueshown is much less than what it ought to lave been, then it may be open to theassessor and Collector not to accept the cost of construction as indicated by theowner. In such a case it would be the duty of the Assessor and Collector tocompute the cost of construction and in doing so, assistance can be had fromc. P. W. D. rates which should merely be taken as a guideline and not conclusive. ( 7 ) COMING to the last question, namely, the addition of Rs. 450. 00 permonth, we find there is no justification that the Assessor and Collector to havepresumed that there was an increase in rent which is represented by Rs. 450. 00per month. A security deposit was undoubtedly furnished by the tenant. Thiswas in addition to the rent which was being paid by the tenant to the landlord. 450. 00 permonth, we find there is no justification that the Assessor and Collector to havepresumed that there was an increase in rent which is represented by Rs. 450. 00per month. A security deposit was undoubtedly furnished by the tenant. Thiswas in addition to the rent which was being paid by the tenant to the landlord. In determining the rateable value we see no justification as to why it should bepresumed that when the security deposit L furnished there will be any earningto the landlord by way of interest or otherwise. Even if it be assumed that thelandlord from the security deposit so received, earns some income, by interest orotherwise, that interest or income cannot ipso facto be regarded as an additionto the rent received by the landlord. It is contended by learned counsel for thepetitioner that there may be cases where the rent which is received is much below the market rate and disproportionally large amount to security deposit isreceived; so as to enable the landlord to earn interest thereon. The contentionis that in such a case the real nature of transaction should be seen and it wouldbe found that the income from the security deposit was meant to be a part ofthe rent. We need not go into the merits of this example because in the presentcase there is nothing to show that the rent which was being charged by therespondents was not the market rate. There is no evidence on the record toindicate that security deposit was furnished solely with the view that the rent isdepressed and that has compensated by the landlord by earning income from thesecurity deposit so received. It is to be borne in mind that the security deposrtwhich was received by the landlord is refundable. The same has to be returntedon the termination of the tenancy and it is merely a security against the nonpayment of rent. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act does not empower thecorporation, in normal circumstances, to regard any income accruing on thesecurity deposit so received and further to permit such frictional or actual incometo be regarded as a part of the rent receipt. Normally any income from outthe security deposit cannot be regarded as being a part of the rent. The conclusion of the Additional District Judge with regard to this aspect is, thereforeunassailable. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. Normally any income from outthe security deposit cannot be regarded as being a part of the rent. The conclusion of the Additional District Judge with regard to this aspect is, thereforeunassailable. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. Theorder of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in regard to the valuation of theland and the building is set aside. We also set aside the original assessmentorder of the Deputy Assessor and Collector and we permit the Assessor and Collector to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after notice to therespondents. There will be no order as to costs.