Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) This is a petition by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenging the legality of the three-orders of the same date i.e. 1st April, 1971 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby he accepted three appeals filed under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., respondent herein. The respondent owned properties bearing No. 8654-8979, 8989-9033 and 9035-9355/XVI situated at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Junior Assistant Assessor Collector vide his order dated 20th May, 1970 enhanced the annual rateable value of those properties from Rs. 58.490.00 to Rs. l,00>000.00 with effect from 1st April, 1968 M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. aggrieved by that order filed three appeals challenging the enhancement for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The order of the Junior Assistant Assessor and Collector is on the record is copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition). While dealing with the objections of inc respondent the Junior Assistant Assessor and Collector held as follows :
'THEsecond objection deserves detailed consideration. These properties are partly let out to the employees of the Mills but addition to it, there are sixty three shops which have been let out since 1938. According to the statement supplied by mill authorities each shop is on rent at Rs. 4.00 to Rs. 6.00 p.m. The quarters let out to labourers are given at different rents. The rents charged 'from the labourers are nominal and do not represent the actual chargeable rents from them at market rates. Taking all these facts into consideration, I hold that Rs. l,00,000.00 is a reasonable rateable value of the properties in question and is assessed at that.'
(2) The learned Additional District Judge has held the above reasoning to be 'arbitrary and capricious.' It was found that the rental income from those properties came to Rs. 78,193.34 p. only. As the properties in question have been actually let out to the employees on concessional rent, it was observed that that could not be made the reasons to penalise the company (respondent herein) in absence of any evidence to the contrary.
(3) I do not find any infirmity in the findings of Additional District Judge. However, I may note here that the Corporation has for subsequent assessment years accepted the annual rateable value of those properties found by the Additional District Judge who had allowed 10% rebate for repairs etc. and after giving adjustment of this amount held their annual rateable value at Rs. 70.370.00 per annum. As the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has itself accepted the annual rateable value on its own initiative, the writ petition challenging that rateable value has become infructuous. On this ground also the petition is liable to be dismissed. I dismiss the same. No order as to costs.