' The petitioner is owner of Property No. 2187-A Fort Road, Lahore. In the last general assessment the rental value of the property was assessed at Rs.3,000 only. However, in the current assessment it has been raised to Rs.43,200. This assessment is under challenge in this writ petition on a number of grounds including the one that it is not based on any material.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and theavailable record perused. A chart embodying the particulars of the tenants, description of the property occupied by them, and the assessm ent made in respect thereof, has been placed before the Bench by the learned Assistant Advocate-General. The petitioner does not dispute the correctness of the assessment relating to two tenants namely, Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Ashiq mentioned therein. Likewise the assessm ent of Rs.35 in respect of one Kotha shown as locked is also not controverted. There is, however, controversy in respect of the premises said to be in possession of tenants namely, Shah Jehan, Mst. Zuhra, Mst. Kallo, Mst. Guddo. The case of the petitioner is that Tanvir Ahmad son of Mst.
Guddo appeared before respondent No.1 and made a statement that the premises in question were in his possession as a tenant under the petitioner and that his mother Mst. Guddo and aunt Mst. Zuhra resided with him as members of his family. He is further said to have disclosed the rent of the premises in possession as Rs.400 per month. It is, therefore, contended that the evaluation of the property occupied by the said tenant has been made by the respondents at a very exorbitant rate much above the rent actually paid by him to the petitioner. The impugned assessment thus, is sought to be removed primarily on the ground that it is not founded on any evidence.
3. Faced with this situation, and to avoid prolongation of the life of this litigation the learned Assist- ant Advocate-General has no objection if the revisional order, dated 22-5-1986 is set aside and the case sent back to respondent No.1 to make fresh assessment in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
4. Accordingly this writ petition is accepted, order dated 22-5-1986 set aside and the case is remanded to respondent No.1 with the direction that the petitioner's revision petition shall be treated as pending and decided afresh after taking into consideration such material as adduced by the parties. No order as to costs.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the respondent No. 1 on 4-11-1986.