Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) THE petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ for declaring the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Ratable Value) Bye-laws 1994, as invalid and for quashing the same. The petitioner also challenges the assessment order (Annexure P9) dated 23. 3. 1998 by which the rateable value of the petitioner s premises bearing Flat No. A-2, First Floor, HUDCO Place, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110 049 was assessed at Rs. 23,19,200. 00 being 8. 5% of the purchase price of Rs. 2,72,85,520. 00 ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that the Bye-laws are invalid inasmuch as they provide for assessment of rateable value being determined on the purchase price, without taking into account the directions of the Apex Court in the Balbir Singh s case and scaling down as reiterated in Lt. Col. P. R. Chaudhary (Retd.) Etc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. , reported at 85 (2000) Delhi Law Times 223 (SC ). ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that the validity and vires of the Bye-laws has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Urban House Owner s Welfare Association and Am. v. Union of India and Ors. and Dr. Vijay Aggarwal v. The Commissioner, MCD reported at 60 (1995) Delhi Law Times 644 (DB ). The Division Bench observed as under: "we will, therefore, reject the arguments that the R. V. Bye-laws levying property tax are in any way unconstitutional or invalid qua the Act. We have threadbare considered the R. V. Bye-laws and it would appear to us that the R. V. Bye-laws have been framed on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and on the basis of law as laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court. " ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in the instant case the Assessing Authorities have not in any case followed the scaling down principle as enunciated in Lt. Col. P. R. Chaudhary s case (supra ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this plea had been specifically taken before the Assessing Authority, but it did not take cognizance of the same. Col. P. R. Chaudhary s case (supra ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this plea had been specifically taken before the Assessing Authority, but it did not take cognizance of the same. The question of scaling down with reference to the other premises constructed earlier in the same locality or in the same vicinity are factual matters, which if not taken note of by the Assessing Authorities can be remedied by following the statutory provision of appeal. It would be open in these circumstances for the petitioner to assail the same by filing the statutory appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondents while passing the assessment order, have held that the liability towards payment of property tax vests with HUDCO till possession was taken over by the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner is sought to be made liable for even the liability of HUDCO as determined by the respondents. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent states at the Bar that the respondents would take necessary steps to recover tax as apportioned to HUDCO upto the date of possession and will not recover the same from the petitioner. ( 7 ) PETITIONER, therefore, does not have any grievance left on this account also. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would, therefore, move the Appellate Authority with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was pursuing the writ remedy. Any such application made would be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.