G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for quashing of the special notices dated 29-6-1985 and 7-12-1985 (annexures-a and b) issued under Rule 9 of the taxation rules contained in part ii of the iii schedule to the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 with a consequential prayer to direct the respondent- corporation to redetermine the annual rateable value (in short 'arv) of the premises in question keeping in view the standard rent determinable under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh and others v Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others , and for consequential orders of refund of excess tax deposited by the petitioner. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is one of the co-owners of the premises bearing municipal corporation No. 76, located at mission road, in Bangalore. The premises in question is a new building which was constructed after demolition of the old structure. On completion of the part of the construction, the petitioner was served with the impugned special notice (Annexure-A) proposing to revise the rateable value to Rs. 1,27,430/ -. In the notice, it was specifically mentioned that the said determination was "subject to further revision when the other portion is completed". The petitioner was required to file his objections within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice. But the petitioner did not opt to file any objection. Thus the assessment of the rateable value, as per the said notice, became final. On completion of further construction, the petitioner was again served with the second special notice (Annexure-B) proposing to revise the annual rateable value to Rs. 5,04,800/ -. Since the petitioner did not file any objection to this notice as well, the assessment thereunder again became final. The petitioner without any demur kept paying the taxes as per the said determination. On completion of further construction, the petitioner was again served with the second special notice (Annexure-B) proposing to revise the annual rateable value to Rs. 5,04,800/ -. Since the petitioner did not file any objection to this notice as well, the assessment thereunder again became final. The petitioner without any demur kept paying the taxes as per the said determination. According to the petitioner, after a lapse of almost 10 years, he has filed a revision application before the commissioner of corporation of city of Bangalore requesting him to review the assessments made under annexures-a and b on the ground that keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, annual rateable value can be assessed only on the basis of fair rent determined/determinable under Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and has asked for refund of taxes paid in excess thereof. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the property in question had been let out to tenants and the annual rateable value under annexures-a and b had been determined on the basis of the actual rent received. ( 4 ) THE contentions similar to those raised herein in respect of new constructions have already been rejected by me in the case of M/s. Rajatha Enterprises v Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore1. In the said judgment, on a consideration of the relevant statutory Provisions and the leading Supreme Court judgments on the point, I have held thus:"from the above Provisions, it is clear that part iii of the Rent Control Act which provides for fixation of fair rent does not apply to buildings constructed after 1-8-1957 which includes part/s thereof like different floors for a period of five years from the date of construction of such building. In the present case, the impugned assessments pertain to the period which falls within five years from the date of construction of the building. Therefore, the rent restrictions envisaged under the Rent Control Act have no application to this building. As such none of the decisions which have laid down that the fair rent has to be the basis for determining the property tax and not the actual rent received, can have any application to buildings having age upto five years". Therefore, the rent restrictions envisaged under the Rent Control Act have no application to this building. As such none of the decisions which have laid down that the fair rent has to be the basis for determining the property tax and not the actual rent received, can have any application to buildings having age upto five years". ( 5 ) SRI paras jain has next contended that even if we accept that fair rent as envisaged under the Rent Control Act will not form the measure for determining the annual rateable value for the initial 5 years of the construction of the building, none the less, on and from the sixth year of the construction, the said principle has to be held as applicable. I have failed to understand how in view of the Provisions of Section 14 (6) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the said plea can in any way be of help to the petitioner in substantiating the prayer made herein. Section 14 (6) of the Rent Control Act, reads as under:"in fixing the fair rent of a building which has been constructed after the first day of april, 1947, the controller may take into consideration the rental value of the building as entered in the property tax assessment book of the local authority for the year in which the building was constructed: provided that where no such records are available, the controller may fix the fair rent calculated on the basis of six per cent per annum of the aggregate amount of the reasonable cost of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the building on the date of the commencement of the construction". from bare reading of the said provision, it is clear that the fair rent of a building like the present one which was constructed after 1st of april, 1947, has to be determined by taking into consideration the rental value of the building as entered in the property tax assessment book of the local authority for the year in which the building was construe ad. Therefore, even in the 6th and the subsequent years of completion of construction of the building, the annual rateable value will remain the same because under the Rent Control Act the fair rent has to be based only on the annual rateable value. Therefore, even in the 6th and the subsequent years of completion of construction of the building, the annual rateable value will remain the same because under the Rent Control Act the fair rent has to be based only on the annual rateable value. Therefore, the fair rent and the annual rateable value have to remain the same. I may notice here that the measures provided for determination of fair rent under the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 14 cannot be resorted to in the present case because those measures can be adopted only in a case where no records of the local authority showing determination of rental value are available. But in the present case, the said records are very much available. ( 6 ) FOR the discussions, as above, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,500/ -. --- *** --- .