M. K. Sharma, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been preferred TO by the petitioner seeking lor issuance of a writ of mandamus quashing and selling aside the recovery notice issuedfor a sum of Rs. l. 10820. 00 dated 9. 1,1997 and also to set aside and quash the entireproceedings conducted by the respondent. ndmc for the lew and assessment of property lax on the car parking space in building known as Toistoy House, 15-17. Toistoy Marg, New Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioner company is undertaking the job ol maintenance. upkeep andpreservation ol the building, operation of common services and management of thecommon areas including that of the building known as Toisloy House, 15-17, Toisloymarg. For the aforesaid services rendered by the petitioner it charges and recovers afixed amount from each of the occupants on account of car parking services. On4. 1. 1993, assessment notices were issued by the respondent/ndmc to the petitioner. The said notices were for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94 and issued under the provisionsof Sections 67-A and 65 of the Punjab Municipal Act. On receipt of the aforesaidnotices. the petitioner filed objections on 30. 1. 1993, which were received by therespondent/ndmc, It was alleged in the said objections that the pelilioner is not lheperson primarily liable to he assessed to house tax in respect of the open car parkingspaces on any account whatsoever and that open car parking space is not a buildingwithin the meaning of Section 3 of Punjab Municipal Act and that the said open spaceis included in the value of the land and cost of construction on the basis of which therest of the entire building including the number of flats already stood assessed tohouse lax. It is alleged that the pelilioner was n served with any order of assessmeniand the recovery notice dated 9. 1. 1997 was received by the pelitioner for recovery ofhouse tax amounting to Rs. 1,10,820. 00 ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the issuance of the (aforesaid recovery notice, the presentpetition has been preferred TO, on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing forthe parlies. 1. 1997 was received by the pelitioner for recovery ofhouse tax amounting to Rs. 1,10,820. 00 ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the issuance of the (aforesaid recovery notice, the presentpetition has been preferred TO, on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing forthe parlies. Il was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the openspace was already assessed when the building was assessed by the respondent/ndmc,for while assessing the building the open space and the amenities provided to the occupants were already taken notice of and, therefore, the second assessment inrespectof the open space would amount to double taxation which is not permissible under thelaw. He further submitted that in terms of the provisions of Punjab Municipal Acl theopen space cannot be assessed to properly. tax. It was also submitted that the petitioner. could not be said to be the owner of the premises making him liable under lhecharging Section, for he was only a licensee and. therefore. the order of assessment, ifany. and the recovery notice issued in the name of the petitioner is liable to be setaside and quashed ( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing lor the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that theprovisions of the Punjab Municipal Act contemplate assessment of both land or building and since the petitioner is admittedly collecting rent fee lor the services renderedby them in open space and the same could be assessed under the Punjab Municipalact anil that assessment is to be made on the basis ol the actual rent/licence fee whichis being received by the petitioner and. therefore. it is covered withfun the definition of owner defined in the Act and is liable to be assessed in the manner as done by the,respondents. It was also submitted that the petitioner is admittedly collecting therenl/licence fee from the various persons in the building using the open space for carparking and. therefore, it is liable to pay house tax on the basis of renl/licence feereceived and in support of his coniention he relied upon the provisions of Punjabmunicipal Acl which are being noticed hereafter. Scction 3 is the definitions Section of the Punjab Municipal Act. therefore, it is liable to pay house tax on the basis of renl/licence feereceived and in support of his coniention he relied upon the provisions of Punjabmunicipal Acl which are being noticed hereafter. Scction 3 is the definitions Section of the Punjab Municipal Act. Section 3 (1)defines Annual Value to mean in the case of land-or building which is in the occupation of the tenant the gross annual rent on which land or building has actually been letout and (b) in the case of land or building which is occupied by the owner, the annualvalue shall be 5%. of the sum obtained by adding the estimated present market value ofthe land and estimated cost of erecting the bliilding less 10% depreciation. Section 3 (2) defines building to mean any shop. hill, outhouse, shed or stable,whether used for the purpose or human habitation or otherwise and whether ofmasonry, bricks, wood, mud thatch, metal or any olher material what ever; and includes a wall and a well. The word occupier defined under Section 3 (10) means to include an owner inactual occupation of his own land or building, and also any person for the lime beingpaying or liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion o f the rent of the land orbuilding in respect of which the word is used. Whereas the word owner is defined toinclude the person for the lime being receiving rent or land and buildings, or either ofthem, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any person or society orfor any religious or charitable purpose or who would so receive the same if the land orbuilding were let to a tenant. Section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Acl lays down the procedure in accordancewith which taxes could he imposed. The relevant provisions of the said Section for thepurpose of deciding the present case are extracted below :-I (a) a tax payable by the owner, on buildings and landsprovided that in the case of lands and buildings occupied by the tenants inperpetuity, the; tax shall be payable by such tenants. (b) 10 (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation in this Section tax includes and duty, cess or fee. ( 5 ) IN terms of the aforesaid provisions the respondent No, I herein could levy assess and recover the tax in. (b) 10 (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation in this Section tax includes and duty, cess or fee. ( 5 ) IN terms of the aforesaid provisions the respondent No, I herein could levy assess and recover the tax in. accordance with the proedure laid down in. the said-Actpayable by the owner of the building and land nut exceeding, 50 of the annual value. ( 6 ) In the light of the aforesaid submissions and the provisions under the relevantact. let me serutinise the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parlies. ( 7 ) THE assessment of tax is to be made by respondeni No. 1 on the basis of the annual value to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (1) readwith Section 6l (a) of the Punjab Municipal Act. The aforesaid properly lax is payableby the owner of the building or land under Section 61 (a) and the tax is based on theannual value of the land or building;. The annual value has been defined under Section3 (1) of the Act and means in the ease of landross- annual runt at which it may bereasonably be expeeted to be let from year to year. A Division Bench of this Court indelhi Paints and Chemical. V. D. M. C reported inalr 1993 Delhi 18 has. heldthat the rateable value of such lands or buildings (to which applicability ot Delhi Rentcontrol Act is not attracted) have to be determined by linding out the annual rentl atwhich such land or building might reasonably be expectud to let from year to year byhaving recourse to the principles de hors the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was further held that if any properly forms subject matter of contractual rent thenthe rate agreed upon between the parties and which was being actually paid by thetenant and received by the landlord can safely by as determining as determining factor ofrateable value. :, ( 8 ) THE term "renl" althought has not been defined in the Punjab Municipal. Actl butthe word "tax" under Section 6l (1) . would also include duly assessed or fee in terms ofexplanation thereto. The rent/licence fee collected by the petilitmer toward providingcar parking facilities and services would, in my considered opinion. Come within theambit of the aforesaid expression rent . Actl butthe word "tax" under Section 6l (1) . would also include duly assessed or fee in terms ofexplanation thereto. The rent/licence fee collected by the petilitmer toward providingcar parking facilities and services would, in my considered opinion. Come within theambit of the aforesaid expression rent . This interpretation of the word rent for thepurpose of deciding the present case is also in consonance with the decision of thedivision Bench of this Court in Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. NDMC reported in1996vol IV. 56 wherein it was held that the term rent must be assigned a widermeaning under the NDMC Act 1994since the same has not been defined. In comingto the aforesaid conclusion the Division Bench had REFERRED TO to a decision of thesupreme Court in Suite of Punjab and Another v. British Indian Cooperation Ltd. reported in AIR 1963 S. C. 1459 wherein their Lortships of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 1017 have held that in its wider sense rent means any payment made. forthe use of land or building and thus includes the payment by a licence in respect of theuse and occupation,of any land or building. The amount received by the petitionerfrom the occupiers or the building for providing the car parking facilities and serviceswhether it is called by the nomenclature or rent or licence fee or service woulddefinitely come wilhin the ambit of the word rent and, therefore, tax is payable on suchreceipt for providing the facilities and as fetched by the promises. ( 9 ) TAX is payable by the owner of buildings and lands to the Municipal Corporation or Delhi under the provisions of Section 61 of the Punjab Municipal Act. It wouldthus be relevant to consider whether, the petitioner could also be included within theambit of the expression owner to make him liable to pay the lax in terms of Section 6] (1) of the Punjab Municipal Act. The expression owner as has been staled above isdefined under the provisions of Section 3 (II) of the Punjab Municipal Act which includes the person for the time being receiving rent of land and buildings, or either orthem. whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any person or society orfor any religious or charitable purpose. The petitioner is admittedly receiving the fee,which is in the nature of. whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any person or society orfor any religious or charitable purpose. The petitioner is admittedly receiving the fee,which is in the nature of. rent as has been held above from the open space i. e. landand. therefore, he would definitely be ineluded within the ambit of the expression ofword owner . In my considered opinion, the word owner as defined in the Act musthe given and assigned a wider meaning so as to include a person like the petitioner,who has been collecting rent for providing car parking facilities in the open space andin return collecting fee/ rent therefrom. The aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he is neither theowner nor collecting rent is found to be devoid of merit. ( 10 ) THIS leaves me to decide the other question as to whether-the aforesaid taxation of the open space by the respondent as sought to be done through issuance oftherecovery notice, would amount to double taxation. Nothing is placed on record toshow and indicate that while making assessment ofthe building and levying tax on theoccupiers of the fiats, the area of the open space was also considered and the samewas assessed. The petitioner, it was aggrieved by the order of assessment and therecovery notice could have filed an appeal as provided under the Punjab Municipalact, which he did not choose to do. This- a ,matter relating to questions of facts,which were to be investigated upon by the. Appellate Authority. Without placingrelevant records in support of the aforesaid contention, the said issue cannot beanswered in the writ petition particularly in absence of any specific pleading andcvidence in support or the aforesaid plea. The petitioner should have taken resort tothe efficacious remedy by filing an appeal to receive the findings of fact from the Appellate Authority as to whether while making the assessment order in respect of theflat or building the aforesaid open space was taken notice of and considered andadded to in the order of assessment. Even otherwise, the petitioner is earning revenueby collecting rent from the persons using the aforesaid open space wherein he isproviding car parking facilities and, therefore, on the said income of rent he is liable topay lax in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. This submission, therefore, is also without any merit and is dismissed. Even otherwise, the petitioner is earning revenueby collecting rent from the persons using the aforesaid open space wherein he isproviding car parking facilities and, therefore, on the said income of rent he is liable topay lax in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. This submission, therefore, is also without any merit and is dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed