JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. The petitioner challenges an impugned order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Assessor and Collector (DAC), Karol Bagh Zone of the Assessment and Collection Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). By the impugned order the DAC rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of vacancy remission in respect of a property at 40/14, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (property in question). 2. According to the petitioner the property in question was allotted to Smt. Pritam Kaur by the President of India through the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi by a perpetual lease deed dated 20.6.1953. The property in question was sold by Smt. Pritam Kaur and finally purchased by the petitioner through three separate conveyance deeds dated 11.12.1987, 1.1.1987 and 11.12.1987which were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. 3. After getting the building plan sanctioned by the MCD in May 1988, the petitioner constructed a building measuring 25,180.50 sq. ft comprising lower and upper basement and ground to fourth floor. The completion certificate in respect of the building was issued by the respondent MCD on 13.10.1989. 4. According to the petitioner of the aforementioned built-up area, one portion comprising 4421.28 sq. ft. was sold by the petitioner prior to the first assessment. After the construction of the building a notice was issued by the MCD under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act) proposing to assess the property and fix rateable value (RV) thereof. By an assessment order dated 13.11.1993 rateable value of the property measuring 20,759.02 sq. ft, which remained in the ownership of the petitioner at that time, was fixed at Rs. 6,28,640 with effect from 27.9.1989. After the coming into force of the DMC (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye-laws, 1994, the RV was reduced to Rs. 5,93,720 with effect from 1.4.1994. Thereafter the petitioner sold certain other portions and the rateable value was determined at Rs. 5,68,270 with effect from 18.5.1994, Rs. 5,42,270 with effect from 10.8.1994 and Rs. 5,00,950 with effect from 1.4.1996 in respect of an area of 17,515.07 sq. feet in the hands of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1996. 5. 5,93,720 with effect from 1.4.1994. Thereafter the petitioner sold certain other portions and the rateable value was determined at Rs. 5,68,270 with effect from 18.5.1994, Rs. 5,42,270 with effect from 10.8.1994 and Rs. 5,00,950 with effect from 1.4.1996 in respect of an area of 17,515.07 sq. feet in the hands of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1996. 5. Relying on Section 164 of the DMC Act (as it stood prior to the amendment in 2003), the petitioner claimed vacancy remission in respect of the property for the period during which the property remained vacant and unproductive of any rent from the date of its first assessment. According to the petitioner, the MCD had been informed by it by numerous letters in every assessment year from 1993-94 till 2000-01 that the property in the hands of the petitioner remained vacant and unproductive of any rent. 6. Notice was given also in terms of the instructions dated 9.7.1980 of the Assessor and Collector, MCD. This Circular also acknowledges the fact that in the event a building is assessed as vacant at the first assessment, the necessary vacancy remission should be allowed under Section 164 of the DMC Act. According to the petitioner since the property after construction was assessed for the first time pursuant to the assessment order dated 13.11.1993 as a vacant property and remained as such during the subsequent assessment orders, the petitioner was entitled to vacancy remission for the remaining portion in the hands of the petitioner which continued to be vacant and unproductive of any rent. In terms of Section 164(1), DMC Act, the petitioner remitted one-third of the general tax after deducting two-thirds towards vacancy remission. 7. The petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2216 of 2004 in this Court after its representation made to the MCD for grant of vacancy remission remained undecided. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the following Order dated 26.2.2004: "The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that his plea for vacancy remission has not been decided and instead demands for property tax are being pressed. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from Mr. Onkar Nath, Zonal Inspector, states that this petition may be disposed of with directions to the respondent to appear before Mr. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from Mr. Onkar Nath, Zonal Inspector, states that this petition may be disposed of with directions to the respondent to appear before Mr. Jai Prakash, Deputy Assessor and Collector on 4.3.2004 at 3.30 p.m. After giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, a Speaking Order shall be passed on the question of the petitioners entitlement for vacancy remission. Till this decision is taken, coercive action for the recovery of tax for the relevant period shall not be adopted. Petition stands disposed of." 8. Thereafter the impugned order dated 9.11.2005 was passed by the DAC after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. According to the DAC, the vacancy remission had to be in respect of the period between two tenancies which was not present in the instant case since the unsold portions had been kept vacant only for the purpose of selling them. Accordingly it was held that the petitioner would not be entitled to vacancy remission. The DAC referred to the judgment of this Court in Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India v. MCD, 103 (2003) DLT 459 but sought to distinguish it on the ground that the said decision pertained to a plot whereas in the instant case the property was built up. 9. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of the vacancy having to occur between two tenancies is not to be found on a plain reading of Section 164 read with Section 166 of DMC Act. He points out that this Court in Hamdard (Wakj) Laboratories India v. MCD had repelled this very contention. He submits that there is nothing in the provisions that disentitles the petitioner to grant a vacancy remission in respect of unsold and unoccupied portions which was unproductive of rent since the date of completion of construction. Even though no notice of vacancy is required for a property that remained vacant at the time of initial assessment, that could not be a ground for rejecting the request of the petitioner. . 10. On the other hand Mr. Anoop Bagai, learned Counsel for the MCD submitted that a collective reading of Section 164 and Section 156, DMC Act would imply that only where the notice of vacancy is given by the owner of the property as occurring between two successive tenancies, the vacancy remission could be granted. . 10. On the other hand Mr. Anoop Bagai, learned Counsel for the MCD submitted that a collective reading of Section 164 and Section 156, DMC Act would imply that only where the notice of vacancy is given by the owner of the property as occurring between two successive tenancies, the vacancy remission could be granted. In the written submissions it is contended that the property had never been assessed as vacant earlier. Further according to the MCD "that vacancy remission is only admissible where the property has been let out and thereafter has remained vacant." It is contended that the property has not remained unproductive of rent. Even if a property was not actually let out on rent, as long as it was capable of fetching rent, it would disentitle a person from seeking vacancy remission in respect of such property. It is lastly claimed that the property was in self-use and, therefore, no vacancy remission can be granted in respect of such property. 11. There is no dispute that a large portion of the property in question continued to remain unoccupied. The relevant provisions of the DMC Act as they stood prior to the amendment in 2003 read as under: "164. Remission, or refund of tax.- (1) If any building together with land appurtenant thereto has remained vacant and unproductive of rent for sixty or more consecutive days, the Commissioner shall remit or refund, as the case may be, two-thirds of such portion of the general tax assessed on the rateable value thereof, as may be proportionate to the number of days during which the said building together with the land appurtenant thereto has remained vacant and unproductive of rent." "166. Notice to be given of the circumstances ill which remission or refund is called- No remission or refund under Sections 164 and 165 shall be made unless notice in writing of the fact that land, building or tenements has become vacant and unproductive of rent has been given to the Commissioner and no remission or refund shall take effect in respect of any period commencing more than fifteen days before delivery of such notice. (This provision stands repealed with effect from 1.8.2003 but is relevant for the assessment year in question in the instant case). 167. (This provision stands repealed with effect from 1.8.2003 but is relevant for the assessment year in question in the instant case). 167. What buildings, arc to be deemed vacant.- (1) For the purposes of Sections 164 and 165, no land, building or tenement shall be deemed vacant if maintained as a pleasure resort or town or country house or be deemed unproductive of rent if let to a tenant who has a continuing right of occupation thereof, whether he is in actual occupation or not. (2) The burden of proving the facts entitling any person to claim relief under Section 163, or Section 164 or Section 165, shall be upon him. 168. Notice to be given of every occupation of vacant land or building.- The owner of any land, building or tenement in respect of which a remission or refund of tax has been given under Section 164 or Section 165 shall give notice of the reoccupation of such land, building or tenement within fifteen days of such reoccupation." 12. In Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India an argument was advanced before this Court, similar to the one raised here, that vacancy remission could be granted only for the period between two successive tenancies. The contention advanced by the MCD as recorded in para 12 of the said judgment reads as under: "12. If the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent was to be accepted it would imply that an artificial distinction is made between properties let out and vacated and properties which have remained vacant in the beginning through such & distinction is not provided in Section 164 which grants such vacancy remission. The implication would also be that while in a particular case the property was let out and vacated but could not be subsequently let out due to certain market conditions the vacancy remission would be admissible while on the other hand a property newly built, which cannot be let out due to market conditions would not be entitled to the vacancy remission. In my considered view even keeping in mind the object of grant of vacancy remission this artificial distinction should not be made. The purpose of grant of vacancy remission is to grant such remission for the period of time when the property which is capable of being let out has not been let out." 13. In my considered view even keeping in mind the object of grant of vacancy remission this artificial distinction should not be made. The purpose of grant of vacancy remission is to grant such remission for the period of time when the property which is capable of being let out has not been let out." 13. After referring to the earlier judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Lawrence Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 100 (2002) DLT 467 this Court in Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories negatived the above contention. It was held as under (DL T pp 463-464): "14. A reference to the circular of MCD referred to in the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Lawrence Cold Storage case (supra), would also show that a question arose whether a vacancy remission is admissible in the case of a building which was fit for occupation at an earlier date, but was actually let out much later or at least after 60 days. It was decided that in case of building which is assessed as vacant in the first instance, necessary vacancy remission should be allowed. In other cases such notice envisaged under Section 166 of the Act was not required. Thus in my considered view no reliance can be placed on the provisions of Sections 166 and 168 for limiting the provision of vacancy remission under Section 164 of the Act since they do not come into play. The mere fact that in the present case it is land and not a building would not make difference since Section 164(1) deals with the building while Section 164(2) deals with the land. Thus the effect of the judgment in the M.C.D. v. Lawrence Cold Storage case (supra), would also be applicable to the present case. In fact, this is in conformity with the policy decision of MCD dated 9.7.1980." 14. It was also held by this Court in Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India that in case a building is assessed as vacant in the first instance, necessary vacancy remission should be allowed without a notice under Section 166. The very same arguments of the MCD viz., that vacancy remission can be granted only in respect of a vacancy between two tenancies and that as long as the property is capable of fetching rent, even if it is not actually let out, vacancy remission cannot be granted, have been rejected. The very same arguments of the MCD viz., that vacancy remission can be granted only in respect of a vacancy between two tenancies and that as long as the property is capable of fetching rent, even if it is not actually let out, vacancy remission cannot be granted, have been rejected. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the DAC erred in seeking to distinguish the decision in Hamdard (Wakj) Laboratories India in it application to the facts of the instant case. 15. As already emphasised in the above decision, the very purpose of grant of vacancy remission is to acknowledge the fact that a property which is vacant and unoccupied does not place a burden on scarce municipal resources and, therefore, where it is shown that a certain portion has remained vacant then remission is granted in respect of the two-thirds of the portion of the general tax on the rateable value as may be proportionate to the number of days during which the said building together with the land appurtenant thereto is vacant and unproductive. 16. The MCD does not dispute the fact that a portion of the property has remained vacant as claimed by the petitioner. A denial of vacancy remission on the ground that it is not between two tenancies is based on an incorrect understanding of the law particularly when such an argument was rejected in Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India by this Court. 17. For all of the above reasons, the impugned Order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the DAC cannot be sustained in law and it is hereby quashed. The MCD is directed to grant vacancy remission, to the petitioner in respect of the property in question which remained vacant and unproductive of rent from the date of initial assessment. The MCD should comply with this order within a period of four weeks from today and in any event not later than 30.9.2007. 18. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The application is disposed of. Writ Petition allowed.