Alternate remedy and standard-rent principles governed hotel property tax valuation; impugned assessment was set aside for fresh consideration.

A writ petition challenging a property tax assessment was not barred merely because an alternate statutory appeal existed, since the dispute raised a serious question of law affecting multiple assessments and fell within the recognised exception to the alternate-remedy rule; the petition was therefore maintainable. For valuation of hotel premises, annual rateable value had to be determined by applying the standard-rent principles under Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Resort to Chapter V and Section 9(4) was impermissible unless standard rent could genuinely not be determined on those principles. The assessment was unsustainable, and fresh assessment was directed under the correct legal framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition against the property tax assessment was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory appeal; (ii) Whether the annual rateable value of the hotel property could be fixed by applying Chapter V of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and by resorting to Section 9(4) of that Act instead of the principles governing standard rent under Section 6.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition against the property tax assessment was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory appeal;

Analysis: The appellate remedy ordinarily provides an efficacious course, but the matter involved a serious question of law affecting a large number of assessments and required authoritative determination. The case fell within the recognised exception to the rule of alternate remedy, and the writ petition ought to have been heard on merits rather than dismissed in limine.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternate remedy was rejected, and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the annual rateable value of the hotel property could be fixed by applying Chapter V of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and by resorting to Section 9(4) of that Act instead of the principles governing standard rent under Section 6.

Analysis: A hotel is a premises within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and for property tax purposes the rateable value must be anchored to the principles for determination of standard rent under Section 6. Section 9(4) can be used only where standard rent cannot otherwise be determined. Where the hotel is self-occupied and the relevant cost and land values are not fully produced, the assessing authority must estimate them and apply Section 6; it cannot bypass that exercise merely because the assessee's material is incomplete. The assessment order disclosed reliance on Chapter V of the Act and an impermissible resort to Section 9(4), along with other defects in the manner of assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment was unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction for fresh assessment in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge was set aside, and the impugned assessment was annulled for reconsideration afresh under the correct legal principles.

Ratio Decidendi: For property tax valuation of hotel premises, rateable value must be determined on the basis of the standard-rent principles applicable under the rent control law, and the assessing authority cannot resort to the residual provision for exceptional cases unless standard rent is genuinely incapable of determination on those principles.

---