JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.: - The aforesaid two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 13144 and 13243 of 2007 have been filed against a similar order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 as well as the assessment order dated 07.09.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 enhancing the house tax. Since common question of law and fact are involved, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The facts of this case are taken from CWP No. 13144 of 2007. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner who was earlier a tenant purchased the premises from the landlord. Earlier house-tax was being charged at the rate of Rs. 8066/-per annum. However, by the impugned bill the tax was increased to Rs. 37,935/- per annum. The petitioner after making the pre-deposit filed an appeal which as mentioned above was dismissed by order Annexure P-8, The same was dismissed on the ground that the order was a consent order. The petitioner challenged both the order by way of the instant petition. 3. In reply the stand taken is that the respondent could assess the house tax on the basis of Section 93(C) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976. Section 93© is as follows:- Determination of ratable value of lands and building assessable taxes,…...………………….…………………………………………………… (a) ……………………………………………………………………………….. The petitioner challenged both the order by way of the instant petition. 3. In reply the stand taken is that the respondent could assess the house tax on the basis of Section 93(C) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976. Section 93© is as follows:- Determination of ratable value of lands and building assessable taxes,…...………………….…………………………………………………… (a) ……………………………………………………………………………….. (b) ………………………………………………………………………………… (c) In the case of any building, the gross annual rent of which cannot be determined under clause (b), 5 per cent on the sum obtained, by adding the estimated present cost of erecting the building less such amount as the commissioner may deem reasonable to be deducted on account of depreciation (if any) to the estimated market value of the site and any land attached to the building: Proved that - (i) In the calculation of the ratable value of any premises no account shall be taken of any machinery thereon; (ii) when a residential building is occupied by the owner or is not let the rateable value shall be fifty percentum of the annual market rent prevalent at the time of assessment in the locality for similar accommodation Provided further that in respect of any land or building the fair rent where of has been fixed under the law relating to rent restriction for the time being in force the rateable value there of shall not exceed the annual amount of the fair rent so fixed or the actual rent for which the same has been let whichever is higher.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s has argued that the respondents cannot take recourse to section 93(c) but will have to assess the house tax on the basis of Section 93 (b) of the Act. I find the argument to be correct. Section 93 (c) is applicable only where the rental value cannot be worked out. The present is not such a case because in the area where the property of the petitioner is situated the provisions of the Rent Act are applicable. Thus, there was no bar to assess the rental value. I find the argument to be correct. Section 93 (c) is applicable only where the rental value cannot be worked out. The present is not such a case because in the area where the property of the petitioner is situated the provisions of the Rent Act are applicable. Thus, there was no bar to assess the rental value. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance on Muncipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town 1 Residents Association and others reported as [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2368 (SC): 2007(3) Law Herald (SC) 2429] : 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 1 where their lordships upheld the validity of Section 3(1) (b) of the Punjab Muncipal Act, 1911. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that Section 3(1) (b) is parimateria to Section 93 (c). However, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the fact that in the Punjab Municipal Act, Section 3 (8aa) was added which defines the phrase ‘market value’ and no such amendment was carried out in the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. As per Learned counsel the reliance on this judgment would be misplaced. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to counter this argument. 5. Consequently the writ petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Municipal Corporation, Patiala to determine the house tax value under Section 93 (b) (Supra). Reassessment be done within three months and if it is found that the petitioner/s have paid the excess house tax the same be also adjusted in the future years. For this purpose the petitioner/s shall appear before the house tax committee of the Muncipal Corporation, Patiala on 15.02.