Judgment R. M. LODHA, J. ( 1 ) THE Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its functionaries have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 14, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and quashed and set aside the orders dated 24th March, 2004 (Exhibits `o1, `o2 and `p) and the demands of payment pursuant to the bills (Exhibits `r, `s1 to `s8) so far as the present appellants sought to reassess the rateable value with effect from 1st April, 2000. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, we shall refer the first appellant- the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai "the corporation" and the present respondent No. 1- Dalamal Tower premises Co-operative Society Limited "the petitioner". ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims to hold the property being plot of land with building `dalamal Tower, situate at Plot No. 211, backbay Reclamation, Municipal A Ward No. 1315 (127), nariman Point, Mumbai (for short "the said property" ). The said property consists of a building comprising of basement, ground and 15 upper floors. There are 116 open car parks, two enclosed garages in the basement and 274 units in the building. The said building is a non-residential (commercial) building. According to the petitioner, out of 274 units, 199 units are selfoccupied by its members and 75 units are given on leave and licence to third parties by the members. ( 4 ) ON 29th March, 2001, the special notice being No. 312 of 2000-2001 was issued by the Corporation under section 167 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, `the act) in respect of the year 2000-2001 stating that the assessment has been amended in the official year (1. 4. 2000 to 31. 3. 2001) increasing the rateable value of the said property to rs. 1,74,59,615/ -. In the said notice, it was indicated that complaint thereagainst may be made. ( 5 ) ON 29th March, 2001 another special notice being No. 312a of 2000-2001 was issued by the Corporation under section 162 (2) in respect of the year 2001-02 stating that the rateable value of the said property has been fixed at Rs. 1,74,59,615/- for the year 2001-02 (1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002 ). ( 5 ) ON 29th March, 2001 another special notice being No. 312a of 2000-2001 was issued by the Corporation under section 162 (2) in respect of the year 2001-02 stating that the rateable value of the said property has been fixed at Rs. 1,74,59,615/- for the year 2001-02 (1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002 ). In this notice also it was indicated that complaint thereagainst may be made. ( 6 ) IN the month of April, 2001, the petitioner filed the complaint regarding the special notices Nos. 312 and 312a of 2000-2001 aforenoticed which were issued on 29th March, 2001. The said complaint was registered as complaint no. ACR/310/2000-2001. ( 7 ) ON 22nd March, 2002, the special notice No. 164/2001-2002 was issued by the Corporation under section 167 in respect of the year 2001-02 stating that the assessment book had been amended for the official year 2001-02 (1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002) increasing the rateable value of the said property to rs. 5,07,38,165/ -. ( 8 ) ANOTHER notice being special notice No. 164a of 2001-2002 was issued by the Corporation on 22nd March, 2002 under section 162 (2) for the year 2002-03 stating that the rateable value of the said property has been fixed at Rs. 5,07,38,165/- for the year 2002-03 (1. 4. 2002 to 31. 3. 2003 ). ( 9 ) THE petitioner filed the complaint regarding special notice no. 164 dated 22nd March, 2002 for the period 2001-02. The same was registered as complaint No. ACR/257/2001-2002. ( 10 ) IT appears that in the meantime, several petitions including writ petition No. 1116 of 2002 and writ petition no. 1721 of 2002 were filed in this court challenging the circulars dated 8. 12. 2000, 6. 1. 2001, 25. 9. 2001, 16. 3. 2002 and 3. 4. 2002 issued by the Corporation in relation to the rateable value of various properties in Nariman Point area including the said property. While the petitions were pending, the Corporation investigated the complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001 filed by the petitioner and by the order dated 27th May, 2002, the corporation fixed the rateable value of the said property of rs. 53,27,085/- with effect from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. While the petitions were pending, the Corporation investigated the complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001 filed by the petitioner and by the order dated 27th May, 2002, the corporation fixed the rateable value of the said property of rs. 53,27,085/- with effect from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. ( 11 ) THE Division Bench presided over by one of us (R. M. Lodha, j.) disposed of the writ petitions including writ petition No. 1116 of 2002 and writ petition No. 1721 of 2002 and other similar writ petitions by the order dated 23. 10. 2002. In the order, the division Bench recorded the statement of the Corporation that the impugned circulars were being withdrawn and, in view thereof, the action taken or reassessment done pursuant to the circulars cannot stand. The court directed the Corporation to reassess the properties for the purpose of property tax in accordance with law. ( 12 ) IT is pertinent to note that on 23. 10. 2002 when the group of writ petitions was disposed of, the complaint no. ACR/257/2001-2002 filed by the petitioner regarding special notice No. 164 dated 22nd March, 2002 for the year 2001-02 was pending and no order had been made in the said complaint. In the light of the order that was passed on 23. 10. 2002, the corporation by its communication dated 20th January, 2003, addressed to the Dalamal and Sons Investment Company through petitioner, recorded that the assessment for the year 2000-2001 has been rendered ineffective and that it was proposed to reassess the rateable value of the said property at rs. 1,74,59,615/ -. ( 13 ) ON 21st January, 2003, the petitioner filed its objections. The petitioner supplemented the said objections by further detailed objections filed on 8. 1. 2004 and 27. 1. 2004. ( 14 ) TO complete the narration of facts, it may be noticed here that the Corporation sent the notices which were received by the petitioner on 11th December, 2003 and 12th December, 2003. By the notice which was received by the petitioner on 11th december, 2003, it was informed that the complaint regarding the year 2000-01 in respect of ACR/310/2000-2001 relating to special notice under section 167 dated 29th March, 2001 would be investigated and disposed of on 29th December, 2003. By the notice which was received by the petitioner on 11th december, 2003, it was informed that the complaint regarding the year 2000-01 in respect of ACR/310/2000-2001 relating to special notice under section 167 dated 29th March, 2001 would be investigated and disposed of on 29th December, 2003. Similarly, by the notice that was received by the petitioner on 12th December, 2003, it was informed that the complaint regarding the year 2001-02 i. e. ACT/257/2001-2002 relating to special notice under section 167 dated 22nd March, 2002 would be investigated and disposed of on 29th December, 2003. ( 15 ) THE petitioner filed its objections on 29th December, 2003 and the personal hearing was granted to the petitioner on 30th december, 2003. As already indicated above, the petitioner filed supplementary objections on 8. 1. 2004 and 27. 1. 2004. The petitioner also submitted a tabulated statement showing details of owner occupied premises and other details as required by the corporation with respect to the said property on 21. 1. 2004. The complaints were adjourned on 11th March and 17th March, 2004. On 24th March, 2004, the Corporation made an order in complaint No. ACR/310/2000-2001 relating to the special notice dated 29th March, 2001 under section 167 fixing the rateable value at Rs. 90,44,455/- from 1. 4. 2000 to 31. 3. 2001. On this day, the Corporation also made another order in complaint no. ACR/257/2001-2002 relating to the special notice dated 22nd march, 2002 under section 167 fixing the rateable value at rs. 1,56,53,350/- to Rs. 1,57,33,070/- for 2001-2002 and the different rates ranging from Rs. 1,43,65,495/- to 1,55,72,620/- from 1. 4. 2003 to 31. 3. 2004. The petitioner was provided with the tabulated statement giving break-up of calculation of the rateable value for each individual unit in the said building. ( 16 ) THE petitioner filed two appeals (848 of 2004 and 849 of 2004) under section 217 of the Act before the court of Small causes on 2. 4. 2004 aggrieved by the orders dated 24th March, 2004. On 29. 5. 2004, the petitioner was served with 8 supplement bills (dated 31st March, 2004) for payment of property tax for the period 1. 4. 2000 to 31. 3. 2004 at the reassessed rateable value for an amount aggregating to rs. 4,28,51,911/ -. Prior thereto on 26. 4. 2004, the petitioner received the bill dated 1. 4. On 29. 5. 2004, the petitioner was served with 8 supplement bills (dated 31st March, 2004) for payment of property tax for the period 1. 4. 2000 to 31. 3. 2004 at the reassessed rateable value for an amount aggregating to rs. 4,28,51,911/ -. Prior thereto on 26. 4. 2004, the petitioner received the bill dated 1. 4. 2004 for payment of property tax for the period from 1. 4. 2004 to 31. 9. 2004. ( 17 ) THOUGH the petitioner has already filed appeals under section 217 of the Act challenging the orders dated 24th March, 2004, passed by the Corporation in complaint ACR/310/2000- 2001 and ACR/257/2001-2002, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the said two orders dated 24th March, 2004 and bills/demands dated 31st March, 2004 and 1st April, 2004. The reliefs made in the writ petition read thus- (a) that this Honble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, calling for the papers and proceedings relating to the orders dated 24th March, 2004 (being Exhibits `o-1, `o-2 and `p hereto) and the demands for payment made by the Respondents pursuant thereto by Bills (being Exhibits R, s-1 to S-9 hereto), and after ascertaining the legality thereof to quash and/or set aside the same is so far as they seek to reassess the rateable value of the petitioners property and to impose the same with retrospective effect from 1st April, 2000. (b) that this Honble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India against the respondents restraining them, their servants, officers and agents from imposing the re-assessed rateable value on the petitioner or from taking any steps to recover amount from the Petitioner on the basis of the said revision made by the impugned Orders dated 24th March, 2004 (being Exhibits `o-1, `o-2 and `p hereto) and the demands for payment made by the respondents pursuant thereto by bills (being Exhibits `r, `s-1 to `s-8 hereto ). ( 18 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the petitioner, the following contentions were raised; (i) That the impugned order and the bills/demands issued are bad in law being in violation of law laid down by this court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Jeeven Jyot Office and Business Premises Cooperative Society limited. (ii) That the assessee for the purposes of property taxes is the society in relation to the said building and not the occupants of the units in the building independently. The repeal of the then existing Bombay Rent Control Act and the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the said building does not change the situation so as to enable the Corporation to assess the self-occupied units separately from the units which are in occupation of the third parties on tenancy/leave and licence basis. (iii) That the Corporation has no authority to impose revised rateable value retrospectively for a period prior to the commencement of the current official year. The Corporation acted contrary to the statutory mandate of section 167 and several binding judgments of this court as well as the Apex court. ( 19 ) THE learned Single Judge issued rule and at the motion hearing disposed of the rule by the impugned order dated october 14, 2004 by making it absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) aforequoted. ( 20 ) THIS is how the Corporation and its functionaries have come up in appeal aggrieved by the order dated October 14, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge. ( 21 ) BEFORE addressing the issues that emerged during the course of hearing in the appeal, the survey of the relevant provisions of the Act shall be appropriate at this stage itself. ( 22 ) SECTION 3 (p) defines `tax to include any impost liable under the Act. ( 23 ) SECTION 3 (bb) defines the expression "official year" to mean the year commencing on 1st day of April. ( 24 ) SECTIONS 125 and 126 provides for the entire exercise with regard to the preparation of assessment book as well as budget in respect of ensuing official year. Such exercise is required to be carried out in the previous year. ( 24 ) SECTIONS 125 and 126 provides for the entire exercise with regard to the preparation of assessment book as well as budget in respect of ensuing official year. Such exercise is required to be carried out in the previous year. ( 25 ) SECTION 128 provides that the Corporation shall on/or before 20th day of March, after considering the proposals made by the Standing Committee, decide the rates at which Municipal taxes shall be levied subject to limitations and conditions prescribed in Chapter VIII in the next ensuing official year. The municipal taxes have to be fixed as per section 128 before 20th day of March each year. ( 26 ) THE charging provision of taxes in the Act are sections 139 to 144a. Section 139 (1) provides for imposition of the property taxes. Section 140 makes provision that property taxes shall become leviable and levied on all buildings and lands and shall include water tax, sewerage tax etc. ( 27 ) SECTION 146 sets out that property taxes shall be leviable primarily from the actual occupier of the premises upon which the said taxes are assessed, if such occupier holds the said land immediately from the Government. Sub-section (2) provides that otherwise the property taxes shall be primarily leviable as provided therein. Sub-section (3) provides that if any land has been let for any term exceeding one year to a tenant and such tenant or any person deriving title has built upon, the property taxes assessed upon the said land and upon the building erected thereon shall be primarily leviable from the said tenant or such person irrespective of whether the said premises are in occupation of the said tenant or such person. ( 28 ) APPORTIONMENT of responsibility for the property taxes when the premises assessed are let or sublet is provided in section 147. It provides that the tenant is liable to landlord for increased tax levied. ( 29 ) SECTION 149 requires notice to be given to the commissioner by an assessee in respect of the transfer of title. The notice is required to be given in the prescribed form as indicated in section 150. Section 151 provides that the liability for payment of property tax shall continue in the absence of the assessee failing to give notice to the Commissioner. The notice is required to be given in the prescribed form as indicated in section 150. Section 151 provides that the liability for payment of property tax shall continue in the absence of the assessee failing to give notice to the Commissioner. Under section 153, it is the duty of the assessee to give notice to the commissioner when any building or property thereof is demolished or removed otherwise than by an order of the commissioner in order to enable the Commissioner to hold a person liable for payment of the said tax. ( 30 ) SECTION 154 provides for the method for determination of the rateable value. ( 31 ) SECTION 155 empowers the Commissioner to call for information or returns from the owner or occupier in order to decide the rateable value of any building and the land and to enable him to decide the person who is primarily liable for the payment of the property tax. ( 32 ) SECTION 156 provides that the Commissioner shall keep a book to be called the `assessment book in which shall be entered in every official year all buildings and lands in Greater bombay, the rateable value of each building and land determined as per the provisions of the Act; the name of the person primarily liable for payment of property taxes; amount at which the building or land is assessed to tax leviable thereon and the particulars of the charge in respect of the water supplied by the Corporation. As per the scheme of Section 156, the property tax is leviable on the basis of the rateable value which is fixed, as indicated in the assessment book, after the complaint, if any, is disposed of. ( 33 ) SECTION 160 provides that the assessment book which is required to be prepared for the next ensuing official year must be preceded by public notice. ( 34 ) SECTION 161 makes a provision for inspection of the assessment book. ( 35 ) SECTION 162 provides that the Commissioner shall at the time and in the manner prescribed in the public notice under section 160, fix the date and time for deciding complaints against the rateable value which is entered in the Ward assessment Book. If the complaint is not filed then the said entry is confirmed. ( 35 ) SECTION 162 provides that the Commissioner shall at the time and in the manner prescribed in the public notice under section 160, fix the date and time for deciding complaints against the rateable value which is entered in the Ward assessment Book. If the complaint is not filed then the said entry is confirmed. On the other hand, if complaint is filed, the commissioner is required to dispose of the said complaint as provided in section 162 (1 ). Sub-section (2) of Section 162 provides that in every case where the rateable value of any premises is liable to be increased or if the rateable value is entered in the assessment book for the first time, the commissioner shall, after issue of public notice under section 160 read with section 162 (1), give a special written notice to the owner or the occupier specifying the nature of the entry and informing him that any complaint against the increased proposed rateable value shall be received in his office within 15 days from the service of the special notice. ( 36 ) SECTION 163 provides for the time and manner of filing complaint against the valuation. Every complaint against the amount of any rateable value entered into the assessment book needs to be made by written application to the Commissioner within the time prescribed therein. Such application shall set forth briefly but fully the grounds on which the valuation is complained against. ( 37 ) AS per section 164, the Commissioner shall cause all complaints so received to be registered in a book to be kept for this purpose and shall give notice in writing to each complainant, of the day, time and place when and where at his application will be investigated. ( 38 ) UNDER section 165 (1), the Commissioner shall investigate and dispose of such complaints after hearing thecomplainants and when such complaints are disposed of, the same shall be noted in the assessment book and any necessary amendment arising from the disposal of the complaint shall be made in accordance with the result in the assessment book. ( 39 ) SECTION 166 provides for authentication of ward assessment book after all complaints have been disposed of. ( 39 ) SECTION 166 provides for authentication of ward assessment book after all complaints have been disposed of. It provides that all complaints both pursuant to the public notice as well as special notice having been disposed of and the entries required by section 156 (e) have been duly completed in the ward assessment book, the said book shall be authenticated by the Commissioner. Where valid objections have been taken and disposed of, the same shall be incorporated in the form of amendments and shown in the assessment book. Section 166 (2) provides that authentication of ward assessment book shall be accepted as a conclusive evidence of the amount of property taxes leviable on each building in the official year to which the book relates subject to alterations, if any, under section 167. ( 40 ) SECTION 167 provides that the assessment book may be amended by the Commissioner during the official year. It provides that the Commissioner may upon the representation of any person concerned, or upon any other information, at any time, during the official year to which the assessment book relates amend the same by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be so inserted or any premises previously omitted or by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of any property tax or by increasing or reducing the amount of any rateable value and of the assessment, based thereupon, or by making or cancelling an entry exempting any premises from liability to any property tax. Sub-section (2) of Section 167 provides that every such amendment shall be deemed to have been made for the purpose of determining the liability or exemption of the person concerned in accordance with altered entry, from the earliest day in the current official year when the circumstances justifying the amendment exist. ( 41 ) THE aforesaid provisions have been noticed for being kept in mind while dealing with the controversy in this appeal. ( 42 ) ONE more aspect needs to be noticed at this stage: the petitioner in the writ petition averred that they were the owner of the said property. The Single Judge also recorded that the said building belonged to the petitioner and it is the registered owner thereof. ( 42 ) ONE more aspect needs to be noticed at this stage: the petitioner in the writ petition averred that they were the owner of the said property. The Single Judge also recorded that the said building belonged to the petitioner and it is the registered owner thereof. However, in the appeal, an affidavit has been filed by the Corporation on 8th February, 2005 alongwith the documents questioning the petitioners case that it was the owner of the said property. According to the Corporation, the said property is not owned by the petitioner; M/s. Dalamal and sons Investment is the lessee from the Government of maharashtra and the bills are also raised in their name though through the petitioner. In response to the Corporations affidavit dated 8th February, 2006, the petitioner filed the reply affidavit on 16th February, 2006 alongwith some documents. On 27th February, 2006, when the matter came up before us, mr. Aspi Chinoy, the senior counsel for the petitioner agreed that the Corporation may be permitted to rely upon the affidavit and the documents annexed therewith. He, however, submitted that the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 16th february, 2006 alongwith the documents be also considered. At this stage, therefore, we notice that it is not undisputed that the said property belongs to the petitioner or that the petitioner is the registered owner thereof. There is serious dispute about the ownership of the property. In so far as the record of the corporation is concerned, the assessee for payment of the property taxes in respect of the said property is not the petitioner but M/s. Dalamal and Sons Investment. ( 43 ) WE heard the senior counsel for the parties at quite some length. In the light of their forceful submissions, bereft of peripheral matter, two questions arise for our consideration: (one) Whether for the determination of the rateable value of the said property (`dalamal Tower) the Corporation was justified in taking into account the rent/compensation received by the members (or estimate of rent contained in its circulars) from their tenants/licencees in respect of the units exempted from the applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. (two) Whether the assessment orders dated 24th March, 2004 cannot in law have effect from any date prior to 1st April, 2003 and, therefore, the assessment orders effective from 1. 4. 2000 are illegal? (two) Whether the assessment orders dated 24th March, 2004 cannot in law have effect from any date prior to 1st April, 2003 and, therefore, the assessment orders effective from 1. 4. 2000 are illegal? re: Question (one) ( 44 ) THE fixation of the rateable value for the purposes of property taxes under the various Municipal Corporations Act has been in the nature of perennial dispute. The law reports are replete with decisions on this question. As a matter of fact, on behalf of both sides, the senior counsel cited good number of authorities to buttress their respective arguments. ( 45 ) FIRST in the series of decisions is the decision in corporation of Calcutta v. Padma Debi, AIR 1962 SC 151 . The question therein was whether "annual value" of the building governed by the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary provisions) Act, 1950 could be determined at a figure higher than the standard rent fixed under the provisions of that Act. For determination of "annual value" in section 123 (1) of calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, it was necessary to find out what was the rent at which the building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. It was held that a bargain between the willing lessor and the willing lessee uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances may afford a guiding test of reasonableness. Since it was penal for the landlord to receive any rent in excess of the standard rent fixed under the Rent control Act, the landlord could not reasonably expect to receive any higher rent in breach of the law. It is the standard rent alone which the landlord could reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant. ( 46 ) THE other case upon which very heavy reliance was placed by the senior counsel for the petitioner is the case of the corporation of Calcutta v. Life Insurance Corporation, AIR 1970 sc 1417 . Life Insurance Corporation case related to a building situate in Calcutta which was governed by the West Bengal premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The standard rent was defined under section 2 (10) (b) of the said Act. Though the standard rent of the building had not been fixed, it was common ground between the parties therein that Rs. Life Insurance Corporation case related to a building situate in Calcutta which was governed by the West Bengal premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The standard rent was defined under section 2 (10) (b) of the said Act. Though the standard rent of the building had not been fixed, it was common ground between the parties therein that Rs. 2800/- per month being the amount of agreed rent represented the figure at which the standard rent would have been fixed if an application had been made for that purpose. The question thatarose for consideration was whether the annual value of the building was liable to be determined on the footing of this standard rent or could be determined taking into account the higher rent received by the tenant from its sub-tenants. The supreme Court applied the principle of the decision in Padma debi case and held that the landlord could not reasonably expect to receive any rent higher than the standard rent from a hypothetical tenant and the annual value of the building could not, therefore, be fixed at the figure higher than the standard rent. ( 47 ) IN the case of Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town rate Payers Association, AIR 1971 SC 353 , the Supreme Court emphasized that there was no distinction "between buildings the fair rent of which has been actually fixed by the Controller and those in respect of which no such rent has been fixed" in so far as the determination of annual value was concerned. These observations were made by the Supreme Court dealing with the question whether the annual value in respect of the building was liable to be assessed in respect of the provisions contained in the Rent Act. It was held that in view of the provisions of Rent act in regard to the fair rent, the landlord could not reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant anything more than the fair rent payable in accordance with the principles laid down in the Rent Act and the annual value was liable to be determined on the basis of fair rent as determinable under the Rent Act. The Supreme Court observed that the Assessing Authority would have to arrive at its own figure of fair rent by applying the principles laid down in sub-sections (2) to (5) of section 4 for determination of fair rent. The Supreme Court observed that the Assessing Authority would have to arrive at its own figure of fair rent by applying the principles laid down in sub-sections (2) to (5) of section 4 for determination of fair rent. ( 48 ) THE case of Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Smt. Ratnaprabha, AIR 1977 SC 308 related to a building situated in Indore and subject to the provisions of Madhya pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The building was self-occupied. There was no occasion to pay the standard rent fixed by the Controller. The annual value of the building was sought to be assessed for rating purposes under the Madhya pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The relevant provision in the Act provided that the annual value of any building shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which such building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, subject to certain specified deductions. The argument of the assessee was that even though no standard rent in respect of the building was fixed by the Controller, the reasonable rent contemplated under the Act could not exceed the standard rent determinable under the Rent Control Act and it was incumbent on the Municipal Commissioner to determine the annual value of the building on the same basis at which its standard rent was required to be fixed under the Rent Control act. The Supreme Court negatived the contention of the assessee in the light of the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" in section 138 (b ). The Supreme Court negatived the contention of the assessee in the light of the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" in section 138 (b ). The Supreme Court held that while "the requirement of the law is that the reasonable letting value should determine the annual value of the building, it has also been specifically provided that this would be so "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" and observed that it would be a proper interpretation of these words "to hold that in a case where the standard rent of a building has been fixed under section 7 of the Rent Control Act, and there is nothing to show that there has been fraud or collusion, that would be its reasonable letting value, but where this is not so, and the building has never been let out and is being used in a manner where the question of fixing its standard rent does not arise, it would be permissible to fix the rateable value which is reasonable without regard to the provisions of the Rent Control act. ( 49 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Diwan Daulat Rai kapoor and others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980)1 scc 685 was concerned with the question whether in case of a building in respect of which no standard rent has been fixed by the Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the annual value must be limited to the measure of the standard rent determinable under that Act or it can be determined on the basis of the higher rent actually received by the landlord from the tenant. After considering its previous decisions in Padma debi case, Life Insurance Corporation case, Guntur Municipal council case and Ratnaprabha case, it was held that in the case of a self-occupied building, the annual value would be limited by the measure of standard rent determinable under the Act, for it can reasonably be presumed that no hypothetical tenant would ordinarily agree to pay more rent than what he could be made liable to pay under the Act. ( 50 ) IN the case of Dr. ( 50 ) IN the case of Dr. Balbir Singh and others v. M/s. M. C. D. And others, AIR 1985 SC 339 , the Supreme Court was concerned with the question of determination of rateable value for the purposes of assessability of property taxes under the delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 in respect of the four categories; (i) where the properties were self-occupied, that is, occupied by the owners; (ii) where the properties were partly self-occupied and partly tenanted; (iii) where the land on which the property was constructed was leasehold land with a restriction that the leasehold interest shall not be transferable without the approval of the lessor; and (iv) where the property was constructed in stages. Dealing with the first category of buildings, the Supreme Court held that the standard rent determinable on the principles set out in the relevant sections of rent Control Act would fix the upper limit of the rateable value of the premises and within such upper limit, the assessing officer would have to determine as to what is the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get if the premises are let to a hypothetical tenant. As regards the second category of the buildings consisting of distinct and separate units of occupation, the Supreme Court held that each unit would have to be determined on the principles set out for fixation of the standard rent and within the upper limit fixed by the standard rent, the assessing authorities would have to determine the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get if such unit were let out to a hypothetical tenant.