Sr. No. Date 4 2 Orders \^0 iO-4-™ ^ ^resent: Mr. Kirti Uppal with Ms. Anamika Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocatefor the respondents. Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma for DDA. hCW 1769/2001 Learned counsel for the petitioner, by reference to the impugned order lated 18"" January 2001, points out that while dealing with the submissionof the earned counsel for the petitioneron the issue of applicabilityof the judgment in ^)r.Balbir Singh & Ors. v; MCT) & Ors.. 1985 (2) SCR 439, it was held that the same vouldnot apply in view of the amendment to the Delhi Rent Cbntrol Act in 1988. This conclusioncannot be sustainedin view of the judgment in 1,t, blonelP.R. ChaudharyfRetd.)etc. v. MCD & Ors.. (2000)4 SCC 577 = 85 (2000) 1)LT223 andM.C.D.v.DhunishawFramrozDaruwala.100(2002)DLT 679. Consequently,the impugned assessmentorder and demand notice are set side and the matteris remandedback to the assessingauthoritytore-determinethe r iteable value in accordance with law. The petitionertoappearbeforeassessingauthorityon 26®" May 2003 at .00 PM for further proceedings and the assessing authority shall pass a fresh j ssessmentorder withina maximumperiodof three monthsfrom the saiddate. The petition is disposed ofin the above-said terms. o oc • pril 30, 2003 s; SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. r. Cfi'l ^ .fcj- WSHYAWI SALES 02-03 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file Signature Not Verified