B. N. KIRPAL, C J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 14th April, 1992 of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad who allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and reduced rateable value for the year 1980-81 from Rs. 18. 000/- to Rs. 10,778/ -. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts are that the respondent is an owner who is in occupation of the building known as "harivallabdas Nursing Home", at Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Initially in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 the gross rateable value was fixed at Rs. 9,964/ -. Thereafter, special notice was given proposing to fix the gross rateable value at rs. 13,272/ -. Objections were filed to the said proposal. It is not clear what happened thereafter, but from the judgment under appeal it appears that another special notice was issued proposing to raise assessment to Rs. 30. 780/ -. Against this also objections were filed. For the year 1974-75 against the assessment which was made, the respondent filed an appeal. It seems that with the consent of the parties the gross rateable value for the year 1974-75 was fixed at Rs. 18,000/- by the decision dated 17th March, 1976. This figure has been adopted by the Corporation for the subsequent years. ( 3 ) FOR the year 1980-81 against the aforesaid rateable value of Rs. 18,000/-, the respondent filed a complaint and after the decision had been taken determining the rateable value at Rs. 18,000/-, an appeal was filed before the Small Causes Court. A number of contentions appear to have been raised but the Small Causes Court observed that the Municipal Commissioner ought to have produced before the Court the original gross rateable value which had been fixed, and all the other relevant documents, and as it had not done so, it was not possible to agree to the rateable value of Rs. 18, 000/ -. While allowing the appeal, the Small Causes Court fixed rateable value at Rs. 10,778/ -. ( 4 ) IN the present appeal which had been filed, the main contention of the appellant is that all the issues arising in this case have been decided by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 829 of 1983 and the connected matters on 8th September, 1994. 10,778/ -. ( 4 ) IN the present appeal which had been filed, the main contention of the appellant is that all the issues arising in this case have been decided by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 829 of 1983 and the connected matters on 8th September, 1994. With respect to owner occupied premises it has been held that the rateable value has to be determined on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of diwan Daulalrai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, reported in AIR 1980 SC 541 and Dr. Balbirsingh vs. MCD and Ors. , reported in AIR 1985 SC 339 as well as according to the principles laid down by Single Judge of this Court in the case of rajnikant Jeshinghbhai Sheth and Ors. vs. Rameshchandra Kantilal Bhatt and Ors. , reported in XXIII (1) GLR 71. It was therefore, submitted that the order of the Small Causes Court should be set aside and the case be remanded for a fresh decision. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid judgment it has been observed that in the case of self-occupied premises, the rateable value has to be fixed by having regard to the cost of construction and the cost of land and the reasonable return thereof. If this principle has not been followed either by the assessing authority or by the Small Causes Court, then the order should be set aside and the case be remanded to the Small Causes Court for a fresh decision. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent by referring to decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Gordandas vs. Municipal Commissioner, AIR 1963 sc 1742 that the Court has held that it is not open to determine tax on the basis of rate at percentage of capital value of a land and therefore, the determination as envisaged by the aforesaid decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company limited" s case is not correct There is no merit in this contention. In Gordhandass case it is accepted that one of the modes of valuation while fixing rate of tax is to determine the rateable value based on capital value by applying a suitable percentage of return on the value of land and buildings. In Gordhandass case it is accepted that one of the modes of valuation while fixing rate of tax is to determine the rateable value based on capital value by applying a suitable percentage of return on the value of land and buildings. By adopting such a method no tax is fixed or levied on the capital value of the land Tax has to be levied on the annual value and one of the modes of determining annual value is the basis of the return on the capital employed. ( 7 ) IT was then submitted that this method can be adopted only if value cannot be fixed on the basis of hypothetical tenancy. It has already been held by this Court in the aforesaid judgement of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited that one of the modes of determining the rateable value is on the basis of rent which would be paid by hypothetical tenant for similar building inasmuch as it may not be possible that particulars may be available with regard to the rent of similar buildings. More scientific basis would be whether the premises are self-occupied and not let out, to determine the rateable value by fixing a percentage of return on the cost of construction and cost of land. This is what the learned Single Judge of this Court had done in the case of Rajnikant J. Sheth (supra) and has been approved by the Division Bench. ( 8 ) ANOTHER contention which was raised was the burden of proof with regard to fixation of rateable value on the Corporation. In this connection reliance was placed by shri Modi on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Kishori Devi - air 1966 SC 1678 = 1966 (3) SCR 466 . In that case action was sought to be taken under section 107 (l) (c) of the Bihar and Assam Municipal Act, 1922, which inter-alia provided that the Commissioner may from time to time alter or amend the asessment list by enhancing the valuation where the holding has been incorrectly valued or assessed by reason of fraud, mis-representation or mistake. It was while interpreting this Section that the Supreme Court observed that it was for the Commissioner to give particulars of fraud, mis-representation or mistake. It was while interpreting this Section that the Supreme Court observed that it was for the Commissioner to give particulars of fraud, mis-representation or mistake. The said case has no application in the present instance because we are not concerned with any provision similar to Section 107 (l) (c) of the Bihar acl ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent contended that in the appeal which had been filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court a number of contentions had been raised. It had been urged that there was no valid delegation of power and the impugned order of assessment had not been passed by the Municipal Commissioner and there was no proper delegation or proof of delegation in favour of the person who has passed the order. It was further submitted that the consent with regard to valuation in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 should not be taken to be binding for ever and it was open to the assessee to contend that the rateable value should be less than 18,000/- rupees per annum. ( 10 ) THE rateable value in the case of self-occupied premises has to be fixed in the light of principles laid down by this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General insurance Company Limited. Where the assessing authority and/or the Small Causes court have not followed the correct principles for determining the rateable value of such premises which are in self-occupation, the proper course to be adopted is to set aside the order of the Small Causes Court and direct the said Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. It is for this reason that in Oriental Fire and General Insurance company Limiteds case the orders of the Small Causes Court relating to property which were in self-occupation were set aside with a direction that the annual value must be fixed denovo by the Small Causes Court. In the present case also the order of the Small Causes court is being set aside with a similar direction and when the Small Causes Court takes up the matter again, it will be open for the respondent to raise all the contentions which were raised in their memorandum of appeal, but with respect to which no decision has been given. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate for this Court, in appeal, to decide those contentions which may have been raised in the memorandum of appeal but which have not been decided by the Small Causes Court. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed. The order of the Small Causes court is set aside and the Small Causes Court should, denovo, decide the appeal of the respondents and fix or determine the rateable value in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. .