Mr. B. N. Kirpal, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is challenging the order of theaddl. District Judge, Delhi who had allowed the appeal of the respondentand directed the Additional Tax Recovery Collector to re-fix the rateable value of the property No. F-2/380, Asian Games Village Complex, Siri Fort, Newdelhi by applying the provisions of Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the Delhi Development Authorityhad constructed a number of flats, commonly known as the Asian Gamesvillage Complex at Siri Fort, New Delhi. As the name itself suggest, theseflats were constructed in order to house various participants who came to takepart in the Asian Games in 1982. These flats were subsequently sold either byallotment or by auction by the Delhi Development Authority. The sale tookplace in the present case on 26/03/1987 and the flat in question waspurchased for Rs. 7,70,000. The Additional Tax Recovery Collector purportedto apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Drbalbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1985 SC 339 and determined the rateable value at Rs. 53,000. 00. In arriving at this figure, howeverthe Additional Tax Recovery Collector based his calculations on the cost ofthe flat which was charged from the respondent. The grievance of the respondent, who filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Additional Districtjudge, was that in applying the principles laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh s casethe rateable value had to be fixed taking into consideration the cost of landand the cost of construction thereon. It was submitted that the constructioncommenced in the year 1980 and it is the cost of the land at that time whichshould be taken into consideration. ( 3 ) BY the impugned judgment dated 14 March, 198 9 the Additionaldistrict Judge accepted this contention and came to the conclusion that therateable value should be re-determined by finding out what is the Standardrent which could be determined as per Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Controlact. ( 4 ) IN the petition filed before us it is contended by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court indr. Balbir Singh s case cannot be applied. ( 4 ) IN the petition filed before us it is contended by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court indr. Balbir Singh s case cannot be applied. Furthermore, an-affidavit dated 2 1/10/1991 has been filed in Court in which it is stated that the Delhi Development Authority had determined the prices at which the flats were to beallotted. The pricing formula adopted by the Delhi Development Authority wasas under: (1) Cost of acquisition of land ; (2) Actual cost of development of land; (3) Actual cost of construction of building; (4) Departmental charges @ l5/o per annum ; (5) Maintenance charges @ 2. 5/o per annum ; and (6) Interest @ 12% per annum on blocked up capital. ( 5 ) IN our opinion the flats in question being residential which werecapable of and were infact sold individually to different parties either by allotment or by auction, the rateable value has to be determined according to theprinciples enunciated by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh s case Dr. Balbir Singh s case was concerned with residential building, as the presentcase. This is not a flat in a multi-storeyed building or a flat constructed by acooperative Society who may have obtained land at a concessional rate. We arehere concerned with a case where the Delhi Development Authority has constructed flates and thereafter sold the same and in arriving at the reserve price orthe price of allotment has taken into consideration the actual cost of accquisition of land and the development charges thereon. In our opinion in such acase the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh s case (supra) would be clearly applicable. It is-not necessary or proper for us, in exercise of our jurisdiction underarticle 226 of the Constitution, to determine as to what elements should betaken into consideration in arriving at the cost of land or the cost of construction of the building. These are questions which will be gone into by the Addl. It is-not necessary or proper for us, in exercise of our jurisdiction underarticle 226 of the Constitution, to determine as to what elements should betaken into consideration in arriving at the cost of land or the cost of construction of the building. These are questions which will be gone into by the Addl. Tax Recovery Collector but we are firmly of the opinion that the departmental charges or maintenance charges or interest after the building has beenconstructed can under no circumstance form part of the cost of constructionwe give no finding or opinion as to whether the departmental charges, maintenance charges or interest incurred or spent by the Delhi Developmentauthority upto the completion of the flats can or cannot be taken into consideration in arrivieng at the cost of construction of the building. This a problemwhich has to be sorted out by taking into consideration the principles of accountancy and principles of valuation by the assessing authority. What has tobe determined according to Dr. Balbir Singh s case in arriving at the Standardrent is the cost of land and the cost of construction. What are the various elements which make up the cost of land and cost of construction will be determined and would depend upon the facts of each case. ( 6 ) AS, far as order of the Additional District Judge is concerned, we find,no infirmity in the same. The writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. The re-assessment should be completed, as directed by the Additional District Judge,at an early date, after notice to the respondent, keeping the observations madeherein in view. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.