1. ' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.-Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the enhancement of GARY 9f a residential house consisting of two units constructed on the plot of land measuring 1,500 square yards, situated at Shariat-e-Millat Road, Karachi, from Rs, 6,000 to Rs, 13,200, ' The GARV of the aforesaid property were initially assessed at Rs, 6,000 by the Excise and Taxation Officer in the year 1968. As however, during the drive by the Excise Department, the aforesaid property was found to have been under-assessed, the Assistant Director-General, Excise and Taxation, in exercise of his revisional power under section 10 (2) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, enhanced the GARV from Rs, 6,000 to Rs, 13,200 vide his order dated 1-3-1974, on the ground that the premises consisted of 8 rooms in fair condition built on the plot measuring 1,500 sq.
2. Yds. And were admittedly let out on rent by the petitioner at Rs, 1,100 per month. Hence this petition.
3. ' Mr. Nasrullah Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed by the Assistant Director-General in exercise of his revisional powers under section 10 (2) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, reading of which would show that it did empower the said Officer to enhance the rental value in his revisional jurisdiction in appropriate cases. It is an admitted position on record that the premises in question were let out on rent by the petitioner at Rs, 1,100 per month, and there is also no dispute regarding the number of rooms in the premises and the area of the plot on which the premises are constructed. In these circumstances, when the Assistant Director-General found the initial assessment to be low and revised it by fixing the GARY on the basis of actual rent received by the petitioner, the enhanced GARY replaced the initial assessm ent set aside by him, and become effective retrospectively. This is also made clear by paragraph 2 of the order passed by the respondent No. 1, which is reproduced as under :- "It was revealed that the property unit was constructed on a plot of land measuring 1,500 sq. Yds.
4. And the total 'accommodation consisted of 8 rooms in fair condition. The existing annual value assigned to the property unit vii. Rs, 6,000 does not correspond to the reasonable rent which could be derived of this property unit."
5. ' No other contention was raised.
6. ' For the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss it with costs."
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was entitled to a rebate of 10 % for repairs under section 5-B of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act and, therefore, in addition to 20% rebate already granted to him, the petitioner be granted the said 10% rebate. Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate-General and Mr. S. M. Muslim Naqvi, learned counsel for the K, M. C. Both stated that this was the statutory entitlement of the petitioner which she would get when the bill is presented to her but if still has any grievances regarding it she could approach C the appropriate authority for the said relief. This statement by both the learned counsel for the respondents should sufficiently satisfy the petitioner and no order is needed from this Court in that regard.