R. C. LAHOTI ( 1 ) THIS order proposes to dispose of IA 887/92, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff has filed suit seeking preventive and mandatory injunctions in the following forms :- ( 3 ) "the plaintiff prays that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to : A) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from in any manner recovering any property tax from the plaintiff in respect of buildings raised on plots No. 18, Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi on the RV of Rs. 97590. 00 and Rs. 1296000. 00 or on any other ratable value in any manner whatsoever and from taking any action in pursuance of the warrant of attachment dated 16. 12. 91. B) pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to withdraw the warrant of attachment dated 16. 12. 91 in respect of plot No. 18, Community Centre Wazirpur Indl. Area, New Delhi. " ( 4 ) THE defendants have contested the maintainability of the suit as also the prayer for the grant of ad-interim injunction. ( 5 ) IA 887/92 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeks recovery of property tax assessed by the Municipal Corporation being restrained as also the withdrawal of the warrant of attachment. ( 6 ) THE contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff are that the land is held by the plaintiffs themselves as lessees of the DDA and so the libility to pay tax would be of the lessor DDA and not the lessee plaintiff; that the land is a vacant land and so long as construction has not been raised thereon and the property let out, liability to assessment and tax is not incurred. A few objections highlighting the principles of assessment and the errors committed by the Assessing Authority have also been raised. ( 7 ) IT is not necessary for me to examine the merits of the saveral contentions raised by the plaintiff herein in as much as I have the decision rendered by Anil Dev Singh,j. in CWP 4059/94 titled as The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, decision dated 17. 11. ( 7 ) IT is not necessary for me to examine the merits of the saveral contentions raised by the plaintiff herein in as much as I have the decision rendered by Anil Dev Singh,j. in CWP 4059/94 titled as The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. VS. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, decision dated 17. 11. 94 which takes care of all the contentions raised by the plaintiff herein which were also raised by the petitioner in CWP No. 4059/94 also and were disposed of. ( 8 ) HAVING made a review of the several provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the learned Judge has held :- (I) All lands are liable to tax under the various provisions (Sections 120, 114, 115 and 116) of-the Act and so Section 120 cannot be construed in isolation in a manner which will defeat the. spirit of the Act; (II) The doctrine of sterility cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner who has vacant land as vacant land has not been treated under the DMC Actoutside the scope of ratability merely because the building has not been erected thereon; (III) by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal available to an assessee under Section 169 of the DMC Act, an interim prayer for setting at naught the recovery will not be entertained. {shyam Kishore and Ors. MCD, JT 1992 (5) SC 335 and MCD VS. C. L. Batra, JT 1994 (5) SC 241 relied on} (IV) in the matter pertaining to Municipal demands and taxes a person is not entitled to an interim order of stay of realisation of tax as a matter of course. Even when the petitioner makes out a prima facie case in his favour it would not be a reason enough for granting an interim order for restraining the recovery of tax. In a case involving public revenue regard must be had to the balance of convenience and likely prejudice to the public interest while considering the prayer of the assessee for the stay of the demand or attachment arising therefrom. ( 9 ) ALL the principle laid down as above fully apply to the case at hand and clinch the contentions canvassed. ( 10 ) IA 887/92 is rejected.