Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner is a tenant of a shop in the ground floor of a two-storied building known as "devi Market" in Patna City. Opposite Party No.3, Devi Prasad Banka is the owner of the two-storied building. It is comprised in holding No.107 within, the limit of the Patna Municipal Corporation. It appears that there are eight shops in this building and previously the annual value of the building was determined at Rs.3240.00 and the quarterly house tax, latrine tax and water tax were assessed at Rs.101/4/-, Rs.81.00 and Rs.81.00, respectively. In the year 1952 the annual value was raised to Rs.5000.00 and the house tax, latrine tax and water tax were also raised to Rs.156/4/-, Rs.125.00 and Rs.125.00, respectively. On the 5th September, 1955, opposite party No.3 made an application to the Assistant Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, praying that holding No.107 should be split up and the taxes should be apportioned. The application was heard by Mr. S. N. Sarkar, who was the Assistant Executive Officer, and by his order dated the 14th October, 1955, the holding No.107 was split up into eight different holdings bearing holdings Nos.107 and 107a to 107g. The valuation of the entire holding was thus raised as a result from Rs.5000.00 to Rs.8,320.00and the total quarterly taxes were raised from Rs.406/4/- to Rs.603/10.00 . The holding of the petitioner was numbered as 107c and its annual valuation was determined at Rs.1500.00 and the quarterly house tax, latrine tax and water lax were assessed at Rs.46/14/-, Rs.37/8/- and Rs.22/8/-, respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had no notice of the proceedings initiated by opposite party No.3, and under the provisions of Sec.139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act neither the valuation of the holding nor the taxes could be increased without any notice upon him. 2. Counter-affidavits have been filed in this case on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation and also on behalf of opposite party No.3. 3. The main question for determination in this case is whether the order of the Assistant Executive Officer dated the 14th October, 1955, splitting up the holding and enhancing the taxes is ultra vires because of failure to give notice to the petitioner who was the occupier of a portion of the holding at the material time. The question turns upon the interpretation of Secs. The question turns upon the interpretation of Secs. 139 (1) and 139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act which read as follows : "139. (1) The Chief Executive Officer may from time to time alter or amend the assessment list in any of the following ways : (a) by entering therein the name of any person or any property which ought to have been entered, or any property which has become liable to taxation after the publication of the assessment list under Sec.149; (b) by substituting therein for the name of the owner or occupier of any holding the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the holding; (c) by revaluing or re-assessing any holding which has been incorrectly valued or assessed by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake; (d) by revaluing or re-assessing any holding the value of which has been increased by additions or alterations to buildings; (e) by revaluing and re-assessing any holding or class of holdings on the ground of general improvement in the locality where such holding or class of holdings are situated; (f) where the percentage on the annual value at which any tax is to be levied has been altered by the Corporation under the provisions of Sec.136, by making a corresponding alteration in the amount of tax payable in each case; (g) by reducing, upon the application of the owner or occupier, the valuation of any holding which has been wholly or partly demolished or destroyed; or the value of which has been diminished from any cause; and (h) by correcting any clerical or arithmetical error; provided that no alteration or amendment in the assessment list shall be made, under Clause (e) of this sub-section in an area in which a betterment fee has been levied under Sec.78 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trusts Act, 1951. (2) The Chief Executive Officer shall give at least one months notice to any person interested and shall also cause a notice to be hung up at the office of the Corporation, of any alteration which he proposes to make under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of Sub-section (1), and of the date on which the alteration will be made. " In our opinion the petitioner was a person interested in the alteration of the assessment within the meaning of Sec.139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. It was argued on behalf of the opposite party No.1, the Patna Municipal Corporation, that no notice could be given to the petitioner because his name was not mentioned in the records of the Corporation. There is no point in this argument, because the question whether the petitioner was entitled to notice under Sec.139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act does not depend upon the circumstance whether the Patna Municipal Corporation properly maintains its records. It was also pointed out on behalf of the Corporation that there was a contractual rent fixed between the petitioner and opposite party No.3 for the shop at Rs.125.00 per month and this amount of rent included the taxes payable by the petitioner for his shop. There is no material on the record to support this argument addressed on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation. There is nothing to show that the rent fixed by contract between the parties was inclusive of Municipal taxes payable by the petitioner. In any event, the question whether the petitioner was entitled to notice under Sec.139 (2} of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act does not depend upon any private contract between the petitioner and his landlord. In our opinion the petitioner was a person interested within the meaning of Sec.139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. The reason is that Sec.132 of the Act imposes the liability to pay the latrine tax or the drainage tax upon the person in actual occupation of the holding. Sec.225 of the Act is also important and it reads as follows: "225. If any holding is occupied in severally by more than one person, the Chief Executive Officer may levy the latrine tax from the owner of such holding who may recover from each occupier such sum as shall bear to the entire amount of the tax so levied the same proportion as the value of the part of the holding in the occupation of such person bears to the entire value of such holding. " Sec.223 is also important and is reproduced below: "223. " Sec.223 is also important and is reproduced below: "223. If the sum due from the owner of any holding remains unpaid after the notice of demand has been duly served, and such owner is not resident within the Corporation, or the place of abode of such owner is unknown, the same may be recoverable from the occupier for the time being of such holding, who may deduct from the next and following payments of his rent the amount which may be so paid by or recovered from him. Provided that no arrear of tax which has remained due from the owner of any holding for more than one year shall be so recovered from the occupier thereof: provided also that if any such holding is occupied in severalty by more than one person, the sum recovered from any one such person shall not exceed such amount as shall bear to the total sum due the same proportion as the value of the part of the holding in the occupation of such person bears to the entire value of the holding. " Sec.226 of the Act empowers the owner of the holding to recover from any occupying tenant any sum which represents the snare of the occupying tenant of the tax as if such sum were rent payable to such owner by such tenant. Reading Sec.139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act in the context of Secs. 132, 223, 224, 225 and 226 of the Act, we are of opinion that the petitioner is a person interested in the alteration of the assessment within the meaning of Sec.139 (2) of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act. It follows, therefore, that the Executive officer could not have altered the assessment on the 14th October, 1955, without giving a notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of being heard before making the order. 4 For this reason we bold that the order of the Executive Officer dated the 14th October, 1955, which is annexure B to the application, is ultra vires and without jurisdiction and must be set aside and the case must go back to the Chief Executive Officer for re-hearing the application of opposite party No.3 for splitting up the holding and enhancing the taxes giving notice to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 5. 5. In exercise, therefore, of our jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution, we set aside the order of the District Judge of Patna, dated 18/7/1957, which is annexure C to the application, and also the order of the Asst. Executive Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation, dated 14-10-55, which is annexure B to the application, and remand the case for being re-heard by the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, in accordance with law and in accordance with the directions given above. We accordingly allow this application. There will be no order as to costs.