SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) ( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for disposal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner corporation has filed the writ petition impugning the order of the appellate authority dated 9. 7. 1999. ( 4 ) THE only question to be considered is whether respondent was liable to pay house tax from the date of taking over the possession of flat in question constructed by the DDA or from the date when the area was electrified. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the rateable value would be effective from 1. 4. 1996 instead of 15. 5. 1995 in view of the fact that electricity connections were not being provided in the area in question. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 129 of the Delhi Municipal corporation Act, 1957, the property will be subjected to tax from the date of its completion or occupation whichever first occurs and since building was complete and possession handed over to the respondent, the property should be subjected to tax from the said date. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent however referred to the fact that the respondent had filed proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum, Delhi against the DDA inter-alia on account of lack of facility like the electricity etc. In terms of the orders passed by the consumer forum, the stand of the DDA was noted that the delay on account of essential services being provided like water/electricity and sewerage lines was on account of the MCD. DDA as also filed an affidavit and in respect of electrification in para 18 it was stated that : "as regards electrification of the area it is submitted that the payment for electrification of the area was made to DESU in April, 1991 by the elect. Div. 7, DDA, DESU could not complete the work of electrifying the area due to shortage of material in desu store the work of electrification of scheme is in progress and is accepted/ targeted to be 50% completed by December, 95 and balance 56% by March,96 by DESU as per Meeting held on 12. 16. Div. 7, DDA, DESU could not complete the work of electrifying the area due to shortage of material in desu store the work of electrification of scheme is in progress and is accepted/ targeted to be 50% completed by December, 95 and balance 56% by March,96 by DESU as per Meeting held on 12. 16. 95 between V. C. , DDA and agm (T), DESU regarding availability of water,it is submitted that pumping sets boosting water supply have been installed since long back but have not been commissioned due to non-availability of electricity as the area has not been electrified by DESU yet. " ( 7 ) THE same forum found that the water/electricity had to be provided by the authorities as the said Commission had taken note of this fact with reference to Case No. A-83/1995, tika Ram Vs. DDA decided on 18. 7. 1995. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contends that at the relevant stage of time DESU was under the jurisdiction of MCD and the MCD on one hand asked for house tax and on the other hand failed to provide services. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel also contends that the rateable value if assessed would be nil in the present case since the flat was not capable of being let. Learned counsel derives strength from the observations made by learned Single Judge of this Court in Express newspapers Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 31 (1987) Delhi Law Times 369 which is as under : "21. The reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that property tax is levied under section 116 by determining the rateable value of a building, which is to be the annual rent at which the building "might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. " Section 159 fixes the time when the building can be subjected to tax. According to the said provision property tax is assessable from the date on which notice of erection of the building is issued under section 129. There is, therefore, considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel that assessability to tax arises with the issuance of a notice under section 129, but the next question which arises is the determination of the rateable value. If the rateable value is nil then the question of payment of any property tax would obviously not arise. There is, therefore, considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel that assessability to tax arises with the issuance of a notice under section 129, but the next question which arises is the determination of the rateable value. If the rateable value is nil then the question of payment of any property tax would obviously not arise. In order to see what is to be the rateable value, the relevant provision is section 116. The said section provides that rateable value is to be the rent at which the building might reasonably be expected to let. Section 346 makes it clear that a building cannot be occupied or permitted to be let unless a completion certificate has been obtained. If, therefore, a building which has been erected, and in respect of which notice under section 129 has been issued, permission to occupy is refused and the building is actually not in occupation then, to my mind, there cannot be annual rent of such a building because that building cannot be let from year to year. When there is an embargo on the letting of a building and such a building is in fact not occupied either by a tenant or by the owner himself, then there, can be no determination of rateable value or, to put in differently, the rateable value cannot be more than nil and, therefore, even though the buildings have become liable to payment of property tax but in fact the rateable value which will be determined would be nil. The consequence of this would be that in actual fact no tax would be payable in respect thereof. " ( 10 ) I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt about the fact that normally once the building is complete, the property would be subjected to house tax. The peculiar problem in the present case arises on account of the fact that the DDA constructed the flat and handed over possession to the respondent while on the other hand electricity was not provided. It is stated in the counter affidavit of DDA before the consumer Forum that the necessary charges to provide electricity were deposited with the concerned authorities. It was the MCD which had the jurisdiction in respect of the matter regarding providing electricity. It is stated in the counter affidavit of DDA before the consumer Forum that the necessary charges to provide electricity were deposited with the concerned authorities. It was the MCD which had the jurisdiction in respect of the matter regarding providing electricity. Thus on one hand the MCD is seeking house tax while on the other hand it failed to provide electricity within a reasonable period of time as have been noted by the consumer forum. ( 11 ) THERE is also force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the property itself was not capable of being let in the absence of the electricity connection. It is not a case where the electricity connection has not been granted or has been disconnected for any fault of the respondent. If that be the position, a different conclusion would have been arrived at. In the present case the lack of electricity facility is directely attributed to the petitioner corporation. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view the petitioner corporation cannot charge house tax for that period of time till the electricity connection was so provided. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid conclusion, I find no infirmity with the order of the appellate authority impugned by the petitioner corporation. ( 13 )