Judgment 1. Property No. 7/33 situated at Raman was assessed at annual rental value of Rs. 3600 per annum in the year 1980-1981 for the purpose of house tax. This assessment continued up to the year 1985-1986. After partition among three brothers i.e. Lachhaman Dass. Virinder Mohan and Jagdish Rai Mittal, this property was numbered as 7/30-A, 7/30-B and 7/30-C. Property No. 7/30-A fell to the share of Lachhman Dass, property No. 7/30-B fell to the share of Virinder Mohan while property No. 7/30-C fell to the share of Jagdish Rai Mittal. Annual rental value of property Nos. 7/30-A, 7/30-B and 7/30-C was assessed at Rs. 7200, Rs. 3500 and Rs. 1800.00 respectively for the purpose of house tax by the Municipal committee. Raman, Distt. Bathinda. On appeal, annual rental value of property No.7/30-C remained unchanged, while annual rental value of property No. 7/30-B was reduced to Rs.2500.00 on objections by Municipal Committee, Raman. Virinder Mohan-Petitioner through this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has challenged order Annexures P-3 and P-7 of Municipal Committee, Raman and Additional Deputy Commissioner. Bathinda respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that while assessing the annual rental value of property No. 7/30-B at Rs. 3500.00 by the Municipal Committee, Raman. Municipal Committee, Raman did not determine the fair rent of the property. While passing order Annexure P-7, Additional Deputy Commissioner. Bathinda reduced the annual rental value of the property to Rs.2500.00. Additional Deputy Commissioner also did not take into account that no assessment could be made without determining first the fair rent of the property. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house tax could be assessed only after determining the fair rent of the property. He further submits that when it was composite property, the entire property was assessed only at an annual rental value of Rs. 3600.00 Even when no additions or alterations had been made this property was assessed at an annual rental value of Rs.11500.00 after this property had been divided into three parts and allotted to three brothers on partition. This was without any reason. 3. 3600.00 Even when no additions or alterations had been made this property was assessed at an annual rental value of Rs.11500.00 after this property had been divided into three parts and allotted to three brothers on partition. This was without any reason. 3. It was held in Devan Daulat Rai Kapoor V/s. New Delhi Municipality Committee, AIR 1980 SC 541 that where a building is governed by the provision of Rent Control Legislation the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to receive anything more than the standard rent from a hypothetical tenant and the annual value of the building cannot therefore exceed the standard rent. Even in case of a building in respect of which no standard rent has been fixed within the prescribed period of limitation and thus the tenant is precluded from making an application for fixation of standard rent with the result that landlord is lawfully entitled to continue to receive the contractual rent, the annual value must be limited to the measure of standard rent determinable under the Rent Act and cannot be determined on the basis of the higher rent actually received by the landlord from the tenant. Even if the standard rent has not been fixed by the controller, the landlord cannot reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant anything more than the standard rent determinable under the Act and this would be so equally whether the building has been let out to a tenant who has lost his right to apply for fixation of the standard rent or the building is self-occupied by the owner. The assessing authority would, in either case, have to arrive at its own figure of the standard rent by applying principles laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for determination of standard rent and determine the annual value of the building on the basis of such figure of standard rent. 4. In this case, no effort was made either by the Municipal Committee or by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda to have first the fair rent of the property determined. The determination of annual rental value of the property by the Municipal Committee as also by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, was thus faulty. In this view of the matter, order Annexures P-3 and P-7 are quashed. 5. The determination of annual rental value of the property by the Municipal Committee as also by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, was thus faulty. In this view of the matter, order Annexures P-3 and P-7 are quashed. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition, property No. 7/30-B was sold by Virinder Mohan to Kamal Kant and Ashok Kumar. Municipal Committee issued notice under S. 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act to Kamal Kant and Ashok Kumar assessing the property at Rs.4050.00 for the purpose of house tax for the year 1990-1991. After hearing the objections, assessment of the property was maintained at Rs.4050.00 vide order Annexure P-11. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the quashing of order An-nexure P-11. Learned counsel for the Municipal Committee submits that order Annexure P-11 cannot be quashed when Kamal Kant and Ashok Kumar could go in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under S. 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Learned counsel further submits, there is a specific bar under S. 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act to question the assessment except by way of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Kamal Kant and Ashok Kumar should be relegated to the remedy of appeal against the order Annexure P-7. Learned counsel for the Municipal Committee submits that order annexure P.7 was passed on 19-3-1991 and as such they cannot be relegated to the remedy of appeal after such a long lapse of time and they ought to have known that assessment could be questioned only through appeal and through no other mode. 7. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, orders Annexures P-3 and P-7 are quashed. Kamal Kant and Ashok Kumar are relegated to the remedy of appeal. The time which Kamal Kant and Ashok Kumar have spent in this court in assailing the order Annexure P-11 is condoned. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.