S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner has questioned a warrant of distress under Section 154 of the delhi Municipal Corporation Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 1,21,77,452/ -. The distress warrant issued by the Respondent-MCD, towards arrears of property tax which are disputed by the Petitioner in these proceedings. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner had approached this Court on several occasions prior to the filing of the present writ petition. WP (C) No. 2152/2000, had been disposed off on 10. 3. 2003, granting liberty to withdraw the petition and impugn the assessment. Subsequently, the assessment by the MCD was quashed on 5. 8. 2003 and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment to the Respondents. ( 3 ) THE order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the Respondent-MCD, in wp (C) 8189/2004 and connected writ proceedings. The Court, after considering the entire record, held as follows:-"a perusal of Section 2 (3) and Section 2 (24) of the DMC Act, 1957 shows that the words 'building' and 'land' as used in the said Act have been defined separately. A perusal of Section 2 (37) shows that the word 'owner' has been defined to mean a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any land or building. A perusal of Section 116 of the Act shows that rateable value can be fixed in respect of land or a building. A perusal of Section 120 shows that the incidence of property taxes falls upon the lessor if the land or building is let. Upon the superior lessor, if the land or the building is sub-let and if the land or building is un-let, upon the person in whom the right to let the same vests. Sub-Section 2 of Section 120 makes liable a tenant who pays rent qua a land for a term exceeding one year and constructs building thereon as the person primarily liable to pay property tax in respect of the land and the building erected. Unfortunately, the primary lease document between DLF and Lal Chand charitable Trust and the sublease between the Trust and the respondent has not been referred to, much less taken note of by the Assessing Officer or the appellate officer. Unfortunately, the primary lease document between DLF and Lal Chand charitable Trust and the sublease between the Trust and the respondent has not been referred to, much less taken note of by the Assessing Officer or the appellate officer. Neither has gone into the document to see as to what built up structures were let out by DLF to the trust and in turn to the respondent. For if the respondent has constructed on the land, respondent would certainly be the owner of the building and to that extent would be liable to pay property tax for the building. While determining the rateable value, if it is found that the respondent has erected buildings on the land, whether the leasehold interest of the respondent in the land would have to be included or not would depend upon a further consideration of the lease deed. Section 147 of the DMC Act, 1957 treats a perpetual lease as a transfer. Indeed, in Delhi, few years ago, before the conversion policy was effected, 95% of residential and commercial properties were on lands held under a perpetual lease by the lessees under the land owning agency. Yet in spite thereof, MCD was levying a property tax and this right was upheld by this Court for the reason perpetual leases are to be treated as a transfer under Section 147 of the dmc Act, 1957. Analysis has to be done of the leasehold rights which have flown in favour of the respondent. If the leases are renewable and the clause of renewal requires a similar clause to be put therein, issue of leases in the context of they being a perpetual lease would have to be determined. Since the two assessment orders are totally misdirected and are the consequences of the assessing officer treating as if the respondent is liable to property tax as if the only requirement to be complied with was the determination of the rateable value, there being no prior adjudication of the nature of the rights of the different parties in the property, in my opinion the only course open to me is to quash the two assessment orders dated 8. 12. 1995 and 20. 1. 2001 as also the Judgment and order dated 5. 8. 2003 passed in HTA Nos. 102-114/03. MCD is directed to re-assess the property to tax. 12. 1995 and 20. 1. 2001 as also the Judgment and order dated 5. 8. 2003 passed in HTA Nos. 102-114/03. MCD is directed to re-assess the property to tax. While re-assessing the property to tax, MCD would determine whether at all the respondent is liable to pay any property tax. Provisions of law would be taken note of. " ( 4 ) THE record further reveals that after the writ petition was disposed off on 16. 11. 2005, the MCD carried out fresh assessment of property tax and fixed rateable value for the period 1. 12. 88 to 31. 3. 04. This was by virtue of order dated 30. 1. 2006. The relevant part of that order reads as follows :-"in compliance of orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 16. 11. 2005, the assessee was called for disposal of remand case on 19. 1. 2006 when Shri Yogesh Sharma, Deputy Manager and Shri Ashok Sharma, supervisor, on behalf of South Delhi Club appeared and south adjournment for 27. 1. 2006 for submission of documents i. e. self assessment return form for the year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 etc. But they have not field any other documents in regard to cost of construction i. e. balance sheets, details of additions and alterations with cost, documents regarding commencement of construction and completion of construction. Since the assessment has to be finalized on merits as per directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the south Delhi Club is liable to pay property tax as per section 120 of DMC Act, 1957, the undersigned is left with no other alternative but to finalise the assessment w. e. f. 1. 12. 1988 on the basis of Unit Area Method as per self assessment property tax returns filed by the assessee on the date of hearing on 27. 1. 2006. As per self assessment property tax return, M/s South Delhi Club has calculated the annual value as under by applying Use Factor-3 being Recreation club: . 1964-65 1974-75 1982-83 Covered Area 1321. 37 sqm 1264. 86 sqm 367. 79 sqm Category 500 500 500 Structure Factor 1 1 1 Occupancy Factor 1 1 1 Use Factor 3 3 3 Age Factor 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 Annual Value Rs. 11,89,233 13,28,103 4,41,348 Total Annual Value Rs. 29,58,684 The above annual value is fixed at Rs. 29,58,684/- w. e. f 1. 37 sqm 1264. 86 sqm 367. 79 sqm Category 500 500 500 Structure Factor 1 1 1 Occupancy Factor 1 1 1 Use Factor 3 3 3 Age Factor 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 Annual Value Rs. 11,89,233 13,28,103 4,41,348 Total Annual Value Rs. 29,58,684 The above annual value is fixed at Rs. 29,58,684/- w. e. f 1. 12. 1988 to 31. 3. 2004 The billing shall be on non residential basis as per old schedule of taxes. " ( 5 ) THE Petitioner was thereafter issued the impugned warrant of attachment requiring it to deposit a sum of Rs. 1. 21 crores. It is an undisputed fact that the legality of the assessment order dated 30. 1. 2006 is pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority namely the Additional District Judge. During the pendency of those proceedings the Petitioner approached this Court, claiming to be aggrieved by the distress notice/warrant of attachment. ( 6 ) WHEN notice was issued on 24. 3. 2006, this Court had directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing sum of Rs. 40 lakhs within two weeks, the warrant of distress remain stayed. The Petitioner carried the order in appeal to the division Bench which by its order dated 5. 4. 2006 (in LPA No. 576/2006) stayed the operation of the order requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs upon the statement of counsel for the Petitioner. An amount of Rs. 27 lakhs towards house tax payment had been deposited with the MCD. ( 7 ) MR. Manu Nayar, placed reliance on a chart to say an amount of Rs. 26 lakhs had already been deposited towards previous house tax liability with the MCD and that his instructions are that these amounts are to be refunded. It is also claimed that the Petitioner is not liable to pay house tax since the primary liability at least for the admitted period is of MCD itself. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the MCD submitted that the Petitioner nowhere disclosed having paid to Rs. 27 lakhs after to the impugned demand in the warrant of distress. It is also contended on behalf of the Respondents that even as per the submissions of the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 27 lakhs was for a previous period and no amount has been paid towards the claim made in the impugned notice of 20. 3. 2006. 27 lakhs after to the impugned demand in the warrant of distress. It is also contended on behalf of the Respondents that even as per the submissions of the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 27 lakhs was for a previous period and no amount has been paid towards the claim made in the impugned notice of 20. 3. 2006. ( 9 ) IN view of the submissions, I am of the opinion that this could be an appropriate case where the Writ Court should not inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the assessment order; that is the subject matter of the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly a direction is issued to the appellate Authority to hear and dispose off the appeal within two months. This is subject to the verification of the statement about having the petitioner having deposited a sum of Rs. 26,08,540. 33 as submitted during the course of the proceedings. The parties shall be present before the Appellate Authority on 25. 9. 2006 for further orders. ( 10 ) ALL rights and contentions of the parties in respect of the pleas available before the Appellate Authority are kept open. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider and dispose off the appeal on its merits in terms of this order, within two months from 25. 9. 06. The writ petition and pending applications are disposed off in the above terms.