M. S. A. Siddiqui ( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is the order of the Additional District Judge who, while accepting the appeal of the respondent, has inter alia fixed the reteable value of the premises in question on the basis of the land value fixed by the Land and Development Officer from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law in as much as it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge to fix reteable value without their being a proper-material on record. ( 2 ) THE question involved in this case is the rate of the land at the time when construction was commenced by the respondents for the purpose of determining the rateable value. ( 3 ) IT is now well settled that the reteable value has to be fixed keeping in view the standard rent which is determination on the basis of the cost of land in the year in which the construction commenced (Dr. Balbir Singh Vs. M. C. D. AIR 1985 SC 339 ). Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 lays down principles for determination of standard rent in relation to any premises. Section 6 covers a variety of premises laying down rules for determining the standard rent in respect of each of the kinds of premises covered thereunder. On a perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned Additional District Judge had determined the reteable value of the premises in question on the basis of schedule rates prescribed by Land and Development Officer. In my opinion the view taken by the Additional District Judge runs counter to the well established principles of determining the market price of land enunciated by decisions rendered by various Division Benches of our Court in MCD Vs. C. P. Gosain CWP 4122/90 decided on 24th October, 1991; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. N. C. Jain and Anr. CW 1312/90 decided on 24. 7. 1991; MCD Vs. Jasvinder Singh and Anr. CWP 4096/91 decided on 17th May, 1993 and MCD Vs. K. P. Gupta CW 438/88 decided on 26th April, 1990. In MCD Vs. K. P. Gupta 1990 RLR (Note) 120 (DB ). N. C. Jain and Anr. CW 1312/90 decided on 24. 7. 1991; MCD Vs. Jasvinder Singh and Anr. CWP 4096/91 decided on 17th May, 1993 and MCD Vs. K. P. Gupta CW 438/88 decided on 26th April, 1990. In MCD Vs. K. P. Gupta 1990 RLR (Note) 120 (DB ). It was held that the schedule rates prescribed by Land and Development Officer may at best be a piece of evidence in determining the market rate of land on a particular date. It is, therefore, apparent that neither the schedule rates of Land and Development Officer nor auction rates themselves alone can form the basis for determining the market price, of land in question although both are the relevant piece of evidence which can be taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority along with other evidence which the parties may produce before the assessing authorities. Unfortunately, neither in the assessment order, nor in the appellate order is there any reference to any actual sale which took place near about in time when the construction commenced. Consequently, the impugned order of assessment and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in law. ( 4 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the writ petition is allowed and the Impugned assessment order and the judgment are hereby set aside. The Assessing Authority is directed to redetermine the reteable value of the premises in question in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh s case (supra ). It will be open to the parties to lead such evidence with regard to price of lands as may be available to them in accordance with law. No orders as to costs.