( 1 ) THIS is a refetence under Rule 25 of Taxation Rules in Sch. III to the city of Bangalore Municipal, Corpn. Act, 1919, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The Dist. Judge, Bangalore, has referred to this Court two questions of law involved in an appeal before, him under Rule 23 of 'those rules. ' ( 2 ) THE facts which led up to this reference, are briefly these. The petitioner is a partnership firm running a hotel called 'hotel Broadway' in kempegowda Road, Bangalore. It (the petitioner) took on lease premises bearing No. 19 (Old No. 12) consisting of a building with a big compound, under a registered deed of lease dt. 1-6-1959. Originally the lease was for 20 years and it was extended by another 15 years under a supplemental registered deed of lease dt. 15-6-1962. Under the terms of lease, the petitioner was at liberty to effect alterations and additions and to, put up new structures in the demisel premises and on the termination of the lease, such alterations, additions and new structures shall be available to the lessor without payment of any compensate. The petitioner not only effected alterations and addition to the building in the demised premises, but also constructed new buildings in the vacant land in the compound of the premises. Some of these new buildings like shops have been let by the petitioner to others and the rest are occupied by it for its own hotel business. Prior to the lease, the authorities of the Corpn. of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Cqrporation) had assessed the annual value of the premises bearing No. 19 as Rs. 5,000. After alterations, addition and improvements were made to the demised premises, the Corpn. enhanced the annual value of the premises at Rs. 44,480 for the period 1-4-1960 to 31-3-1962 and levied on the lessqr property tax on that basis. That assessment was affirmed by the Taxation Appeal Committee of the Corpn. in the appeal preferred by the lessor. Against the decision of that Committee, the lessor preferred a further appeal, MA. No. 24 of 1964, before the Dist. Judge, Bangalore, who by his judgment dt. 1-9-1964, reduced the assessment of the annual value of the premises to Rs. 22,060. In determining the annual value of the property, the Dist. Judge took intq consideration the rent of Rs. Against the decision of that Committee, the lessor preferred a further appeal, MA. No. 24 of 1964, before the Dist. Judge, Bangalore, who by his judgment dt. 1-9-1964, reduced the assessment of the annual value of the premises to Rs. 22,060. In determining the annual value of the property, the Dist. Judge took intq consideration the rent of Rs. 1,801 p. m. which the lessqr was receiving, the benefit of Rs. 15,000 deposited by the petitioner (the lessee) with the lessor free of interest and the amount of Rs. 1,01,000 spent by the petitioner for renovation of the building in the demised premises, which renovation would accrue to the benefit of the lessof at the expiry of the lease. ( 3 ) FOR the period 1-4-1962 to 31-3-1967 the Corpn. again revised the assessment of the premises by raising the annual value thereof to Rs. 46,000 presumably because the petitioner' (the lessee) had constructed after 1-4-1962 threat new buildings in the vacant land in the demised premises. Against the revision of assessment the lessor preferred an appeal to the Administrator of the Corpn. As the Corpn. had been superseded, the Administrator who was exercising the powers of the Taxation Appeal Committee, heard the appeal and held that there was no' good ground to enhance the assessment of the annual value of the demised premises beyond what the District Judge had determined in MA. No. 24 of 1964. for the purpose of levy of property tax on the lessor. However, in the course of his order the Administrator observed: "this decision is applicable only to that part of No. 12 (old) 19 (new) of which the appellant, Smt. Kamala Krishna lyengar, is the 'owner'. If investigation disclosed that the lessee is the owner as defined in the Corporation Act in respect of any of the new constructions by him, the Corpn. is not precluded from levying tax in respect of such new buildings on the basis applicableto buildings of that class. " ( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid decision of the Administrator in the appeal by the lessor, the Corpn. gave separate new property numbers 19a, 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 to the buildings in the compound of the demised premises with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962. In the notice dt. " ( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid decision of the Administrator in the appeal by the lessor, the Corpn. gave separate new property numbers 19a, 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 to the buildings in the compound of the demised premises with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962. In the notice dt. 13-5-1968 issued to the petitioner, it is stated that the eastern block of the, existing main building consisting of 48 rooms, was situated in property No. 19a. The numbers 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 were given to the three new buildings built in the vacant land in the compound of the premises. Notices purporting to be under s. 145 of the Act were issued by the Revenue Officer of the Corpn, to the petitioner stating that the properties bearing the aforesaid numbers had escaped, assessment, that it was proposed to assess those properties to property tax and that objections, if any, should be preferred wihin 30 days of the receipt of those notices. The petitioner filed its objections contending that those properties could not be assessed to property tax as the lessor had already been assessed to property tax in respect of the demised premises. The petitioner's objections were over-ruled by the Corpn. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Administrator who was exercising the power of. the Taxation Appeal Committee. The Adminislratqr dismissed the appeal and affirmed the assessment made by the Corporation. ( 5 ) AGAINST the decision of the Administrator, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Dist. Judge, Bangalore, who, by his judgment dt. 11-6-1971, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner made an application to the learned Dist. Judge to refer to this Court nine questions mentioned in that application. That application was rejected by the learned District Judge who topic the view that there was no questions of law involved in the appeal to be referred to this Court. ( 6 ) THE petitioner presented before this Court a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, WP. 2074 of 1971, praying for a mandamus directing the dist, Judge to make a reference under Rule 35. This Court, by its order dt. 17-9-1973, directed the learned Dist. Judge to formulate the questions of law involved in the case and to refer them to this Court with a statement of the case. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the learned Dist. This Court, by its order dt. 17-9-1973, directed the learned Dist. Judge to formulate the questions of law involved in the case and to refer them to this Court with a statement of the case. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the learned Dist. Judge has referred the following two questions of law : (i) Whether the appellant (the petitioner herein) comes within the definition of the word 'owner' in respect of Nos. 19a, 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 and whether he is liable, to be taxed as owner under S. 100 of the Act having regard to the fact that as per the terms of the lease he has to surrender possession of the entire area including the new building to his landlord at the end of 35 years from 1-6-1959? (ii) Whether demand could be made aga,inst the appellant (the petitioner herein), in respect of these additional buildings erected by him on the ground of 'escaped assessment' under S. 145 of the Act from 1-4-1962 having regard to the fact that the Administrator has refused to enhance the tax as against the landlord by his order dt. 28-10-1967 in respect of the entire premises? ( 7 ) BEFORE considering the contentions of Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of Mr. S. V. Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the Corpn. , bearing on the above questions, it is necessary to set pout the relevant provisions of the Act. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 3 of the Act defines 'building' as follows: sub-sec. (28) of Sec. 3 of the Act defines 'owner' as including the person for the time being receiving or entitled to receive, whether on his own account or as agent, trustee, guardian, manager or receiver for another person or for any religious or charitable purpose, the rent or profits of the property in connection with which the word is used. . . . . . Sub-sec. (1) of S. 99 of the Act provides for levy of property tax on buildings and lands within the City of Bangalore. Sub-sec. (2) of that Section, as originally enacted, provided that such property tax should be levied at a percentage of the annual value of buildings and lands. ( 8 ) THE above sub-section was amended by the City of Bangalore Municipal corpn. Sub-sec. (2) of that Section, as originally enacted, provided that such property tax should be levied at a percentage of the annual value of buildings and lands. ( 8 ) THE above sub-section was amended by the City of Bangalore Municipal corpn. (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Mysore Act 33 of 1964) (which came into force on 15-8-1964) providing for levy of property tax on buildings at a percentage of the annual value thereof and on lands at 0. 4 per cent of the market value of the land. The explanation to that section (S. 99) started that for the purpose of that section building included any land appurtenant to such building used as garden or grounds for more beneficial enjoyment of the building, not exceeding thrice the area occupied by such building. By the City of Bangalore Municipal Corpn. (Amendment) Act, 1970, (Mysore Act 13 of 1970) sub-sec". (2) of S. 99 was further amended with effect from 1-4-1970 so as to provide for property tax being levied at a percentage of the annual value of buildings and lands. In other words the position existing prior to the amendment by Mysore Act 33 of 1964, was restored. " sub-sec. (1) of Section 100 of the Act reads :. " 100. Method of assessment of property tax.- (1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premisee. " sub-sec. (2) of S. 100 of the Act, as it stood originally, provided, inter alia, that the annual value of lands and buildings should be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expected to be let at the time of the assessment, after deducting certain percentage of such annual rent towards repairs, etc. The above sub-section was amended by Mysore Act 33 of 1964 with effect from 15-8-1964 by substituting the word 'building' for the words 'lands and buildings'. Mysore Act 13 of 1970 substituted with effect from 1-4-1970 the words 'building or land' for the word 'building'. The above sub-section was amended by Mysore Act 33 of 1964 with effect from 15-8-1964 by substituting the word 'building' for the words 'lands and buildings'. Mysore Act 13 of 1970 substituted with effect from 1-4-1970 the words 'building or land' for the word 'building'. Sec. 145 of the Act provides, inter alia, that if for any reason any person liable to pay any tax payable under the Act, has escaped assessment, the Commissioner' (of the Corporation) may, at any time within six years from the date on which such person should have been assessed serve on such person a notice assessing him to the tax due and demanding payment thereor within 15 days from the date of such service. Sch. III to the Act contains Taxation Rules. Part VI thereof deals with revision of assessment. ( 9 ) RULE 23 of those Rules provides for an appeal to the Dist. Court from the decision of the Taxation Appeal Committee. Rule 25 of those Rules provides, inter-alia, that the Dist. Court may, if it thinks fit, state a ease on any appeal, for the decision of the High court and shall do so whenever a question of law is involved, if either the Commissioner or the appellant applies in writing in that behalf. Rule 26 of those Rules provides that on a reference made under R. 25 the High Court may pass such order as it thinks fit and that thereafter the dist. Coourt shall proceed to, dispose of the case in conformity with the order of the High Court. ( 10 ) ON the first question referred by the learned Dist. Judge, Mr. Srinivasan contended that the petitioner could not be regarded as the owner of the properties bearing Nos 19a,19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 as he was only the lessee thereof and that hence he was not at all liable to pay property tax. in respect of these properties Mr. Srinivasan maintained that under S. 100 the Act every building together with its site should be valued as one unit i. e. , in other words there should be a composite assessment of the building and the site, and that the liability to pay the property tax in respect thereof is on the owner thereof and not on the lessee of such building and or the site. It was also argued by Mr. It was also argued by Mr. Srinivasan that even if any new building is constructed by a lessee on a vacant site which he was taken on lease, it is the lessor who is liable to be assessed in respect of such new building and the site and that the lessee is not liable to be assessed to property tax even in respect of the new building built by him on the vacant site taken on lease. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Subramanyam contended that to the general rule in S 100 of the Act that every building shall be assessed together with its site, there is an exception where the owner of the building is different from the owner of the site on which the building is built and that in such exceptional case S. 100 contemplates two separate assessments, one on the owner of the site in respect of the site only and the other assessment on the owner of the building in respect of such building only. Elaborating his contention, Mr. Srinivasan pointed out that under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 100 of the Act as it sto,od before it was amended by myosre Act 33 of 1964, the annual value of the land and building should be deemed to be gross annual rent at which they might reasonably be Jet at the time of the assessment Mr. Srinivasan argued that prior to 1-4-1965 the annual value of the land with the building had to be assessed by ascertaining the gross annual rent at which such land together with the building might reasonably be let and that there was no provision for the annual value of the building and the annual value of the land being separately assessed. He maintained that even for the period subsequent to 1-4-1965 the annual value of the building together with the land had to be assessed and that it was not permissible to assess separatelv the annual value of the land and the annual value of the building and that hence there could be no levy of property tax on a lessee by assessing only the building built by him on the site taken on lease. ( 12 ) MR. Srinivasan sought to derive support for his aforesaid contentions from the decision of the Supreme Court in National and Grindlays Bank ltd. , v. Municipal Corpn. ( 12 ) MR. Srinivasan sought to derive support for his aforesaid contentions from the decision of the Supreme Court in National and Grindlays Bank ltd. , v. Municipal Corpn. for Greater Bombay, AIR 1969 SC 1048 . There, the lessee of a vacant plot of land had constructed at his own cost a tiled house on that plot. The Municipality sought to levy on the lessor the property tax on the building and the land together the lessor challenged that assessment. It was contended for the lessor that there should have been separate assessments in respect of the building and the land. Repelling that contention, the Supreme Court held that the scheme of Sec. 146 of the Bombay Municipal corporation Act is that when a land is let and the tenant has built upon the land, there should be a composite assessment of tax on the land and the building taken together and that on such composite assessment the primary liability to property tax under Sec 146 (2) (a) of that Act is intended to be on the lessor of the land. ( 13 ) AT first sight the above, decision of the Supreme Court seems to support the contention of Mr. Srinivasan. But on a closer scrutiny we find that the decision of the Supreme Court turned on the provisions of the bombay Municipal Corporation Act regarding levy of property taxes. Those provisions are materially different from the corresponding provisions of the Act (The City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act ). The material parts of Section 146 of that Act, read : " 146.- (1) Property taxes shall be levied. . . . . . (2 ). . . . . the said taxes shall be primarily leviable as follows, namely: (a) if the premises are let, from the lessor; (b) if the premises are sub-let, from the superior lessor; and (c) if the premises are unlet, from the person in whom the right to let the same vests. (3) But if any land has been let for any term exceeding one year to a tenant, and such tenant or any person deriving title howsoever from such tenant has built upon. (3) But if any land has been let for any term exceeding one year to a tenant, and such tenant or any person deriving title howsoever from such tenant has built upon. the land, the property taxes assessed upon the said land and upon the building erected thereon shall be leviable primarily from the said tenant or such person, whether or not the premises be in the occupation of the said tenant or such person. " ( 14 ) AS pointed out by the Supreme Court. The scheme of S. 146 of the Act, is to fix the primary liability to property tax upon the owner of a land if such land has been leased for a period not exceeding one year and to fix the primary liability to property tax upon the tenant who has built upon a vacant land if the lease of such land is for a period exceeding one year. But, the method of assessment oi property tax under the Act (The City of bangalore Municipal Corporation Act) is materially different. The first part of sub-sec. (1) of S. 100 of the Act provides that eyery building shall be assessed together with iis sue. The necessary implication of the words "unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site'', occurring in the latter part of that sub-section, is that where the owner of the building is different from the owner of the site on which that building is built the owner of the building and the Owner of the site should be separately assessed and that in such a case, there cannot be a composite assessment of both the building and the site on which "it is built. The annual value of the site alone and the annual value of the building alone have to be separately determined notionally. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Srinivasan contended tkat a lessee who has built a building an a site which he has taken oh lease, cannot be regarded as the owner of the building especially when the possession of that building should be surrendered along with the laid to the lessor at the expiry of the lease. Mr. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Srinivasan contended tkat a lessee who has built a building an a site which he has taken oh lease, cannot be regarded as the owner of the building especially when the possession of that building should be surrendered along with the laid to the lessor at the expiry of the lease. Mr. Srinivasan also pointed out that according to, the term of the lease all the buildings built by the petitioner in the demised premises would become the property of the lessor at the expiry of the lease or on termination of the lease for breach of any of the covenants of the lease. Mr. Srinivasan maintained that a lessee cannot be regarded as owner of the building built by him upon a land which he has taken on lease from another person. ( 16 ) IN support of the above contention, Mr. Srinivasan strongly relied on the decision of the Calcutta, High Court in Nishikanta Roy v. Monmohon sen Gupta, AIR 1973 Cal. 529 . There, a lessee who had sub-let the demised premises to another, sought for eviction of the sub-lessee on the ground that he (the lessee) required the premises for his own occupation. S. 13 (2) (ff) of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, enables the landlord to seek for eviction of the tenant where the premises are reasonably required for his own occupation if he is the owner. The question that arose for determination in that case, was whether the lessee who had sub-let, the premises could 'be regarded as the owner vis-a-vis the sub-lessee. The Calcutta high Court held that the lessee of a property who has sub-leased- it to another, cannot be regarded as the owner thereof. ( 17 ) THE above ruling is of no assistance to Mr. Srinivasan as the term 'owner' has been given an extended meaning by S. 3 (26) of the Act which defines that term as including the person who, for the time being, has been reviving or is entitled to receive rent or profits of the property in connection with which that word is used. If a lessee of a property is entitled to receive rent or profits therefrom, he would come within the inclusive definition of owner under S. 3 (26) of the Act. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. If a lessee of a property is entitled to receive rent or profits therefrom, he would come within the inclusive definition of owner under S. 3 (26) of the Act. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Srinivasan that the petitioner who is a lessee of the premises cannot be regarded as the owner for the purpose of assessment to property tax even though it (the Petitioner) has been receiving rent for the shops built by it on the vacant land in the demised premises and has also been deriving profits from the use of the buildings built by it on the vacant site. ( 18 ) THE view we have taken receives support from the observations of a Bench of the Madras High Court, in Municipal Council, Tiruneveli v. Haniffa, (1969) 2 Mad. L. J. 495, while explaining the scheme of assessment to property tax under sub-sec. (1) of S. 78 off the Madras Dist. Municipalities Act, 1920, which is identical with sub-sec. (1) of S. 100 of the Act (the City of Bangalore municipal Corpn, Act ). Their Lordships said thus at p. 498: " The scheme of the Act is to levy the property tax upon the owner and the basis of assessment is the value of the hereditament or the property in the hands of the owner. The annual value is to be determined not with reference to the value of the property in the hands of an occupier, i. e. , the vajue of the property to the owner is the basic standard in making the assessment under the Act. This feature which is essentially different from the basis of assessment under the English rating Ads must be borne in mind in the proper interpretation of S. 82 and in the application of the principles enunciated in the English decisions. From the earliest times, under the Rating Act in England, it is the inhabitant who is taxed and it is in respect of the value of his occupation that the rate is levied as distinct from the value of the property to the owner. Under the Dist. Municipalities Act, the annual value is the annual value of the property belonging to the owner and the property belonging to the tenant, whether machinery or furniture will have to be execluded. Under the Dist. Municipalities Act, the annual value is the annual value of the property belonging to the owner and the property belonging to the tenant, whether machinery or furniture will have to be execluded. Furher if the lands belonged to one person and buildings to another, property tax cannoy be levied upon the annual value of the lands and the buildings put together. The property tax will have to be assessed separately. " ( 19 ) THEIR Lordships further observed at page 501 : " Thus it is seen the main basis is the rent realised by the landlord i. e. , the value of the holding in his hands and not the value of the holding in the hands of the tenant after he had invested capital and effected several improvements and changes and made it suitable for a particular purpose after providing various amenities. " thus, the petitioner must be held to come within the definition of owner in respect of buildings it has constructed on the vacant land in the demised premises and hence is liable to be assessed to property tax under sub-sec. (1)of S. 100 of the Act on the annual value of those buildings only. We shall now examine the more specific question whether the petitioner could be regarded as the owner in respect of properties bearing nos. 19a, 19/1, 19/2, and 19/3 and could be assessed to property tax thereon. The last 3 items of properties bearing Nos. 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3, do not present much difficulty because it is common ground that they are distinct and separate new buildings constructed by the petitioner on the vacant land in the compound of the demised premises. Hence, in respect of those three buildings the petitioner must be regarded as the owner thereof and the petitioner's lessor, as the owner of the site on which those buildings have been built. ( 20 ) BUT the property bearing No. 19a presents considerable difficulty. It is common ground that in the demised premises there was an old building of considerable size and that after taking it on lease the petitioner made extensive renovation, improvements, alterations and additions to that old building. As stated earler, originally the whole of the demised premises bore, prpeperty No. 19 and it was only subsequent to the order of the Administrator dt. As stated earler, originally the whole of the demised premises bore, prpeperty No. 19 and it was only subsequent to the order of the Administrator dt. 28-10-1967 in the appeal preferred by the lessor, the Corpn. gave additional property Nos. l9a, 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 to different portions of the demised premises. It is not clear which portion of the old building continues to bear old property No. 19 and which portion of that building as renovated, improved, altered and added, bears property No. 19a. All that is stated in the notice dt. 13-5-1968 issued by the Corpn. to the petitioner. is that the eastern block of the main building consisting of 48 rooms, was comprised in 19a. It is not clear whether the property bearing 19a comprises wholly of additions to the old building in the demised premises or partly of such additions and partly of reconstructed renovated, improved or altered portions of the old building. The importance of this aspect appeals to have escaped the attention of both the parties and also of the learned District Judge. ( 21 ) IF the whole of the property bearing No. 19a comprises of new structures (as distinguished from alterations, improvements, reconstruction and renovation) built upon the vacant site abutting the old building, then those additional structures are in the same position as the new separate buildings bearing property Nos. 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 and the petitioner can be regarded as the owner of the building bearing No. 19a and the lessor may be regarded as the owner of the site on which the building is built. But, if the property bearing No. 19a comprises of the whole or part of the old building as reconstructed, renovated, improved or altered or of structures added vertically upon the old building (either in its original condition or after renovation or rebuilding), then the petitioner cannot be regarded as the owner of such structures and the lessor as the owner of the site only as contemplated in the latter part of sub-sec (1) of S. 100 of the Act. In order to assess the petitioner to properly tax as the owner of the building in the property bearing No. 19a, it is necessary that the whole of such building should comprise of additional structures built upon vacant land in the demised premises. In order to assess the petitioner to properly tax as the owner of the building in the property bearing No. 19a, it is necessary that the whole of such building should comprise of additional structures built upon vacant land in the demised premises. If the buildings comprised in the property bearing No. 19a are partly additional structures built by the petitioner on vacant land and partly renovated rebuilt improved or altered portions of the old building or structures built vertically on the old building (even if it be after rebuilding or renovating such old building), then the assessment of the petitioner to property tax as the owner of the buildings in the property bearing No. 19a, will be bad on account of mixing up of buildings assessable and buildings not assessable to property tax in the hands of the petitioner. ( 22 ) ON the second question referred by the Dist. Judge, Mr. Srinivasan contended that the lessor had been assessed to property tax in respect of the whole of the demised premises for the period 1-4-1962 to, 31-3-1967, that since the properties bearing Nos. 19a 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3 formed parts of the demised premises which had already been assessed to property tax, there was no escapement of property tax in respect of these properties for the period 1-4-1962 to 31-3-1967 and that hence no notices under S. 145 of the Act could be issued to the petitioner assessing it (the petitioner) to property tax. ( 23 ) THE above contention of Mr. Srinivasan proceeds on the premise that there was a composite assessment of the buildings and site for levy of property tax on the lessor. As we have already pointed out where the owner of the building and the Qwner of the site on which it stands, are different persons, S. 100 (1) requires separate assessments to be made on the lessor and the lessee. Hence the assessment made on the petitioner's lessor, to property tax on the demised premises should be regarded as being only on the old building and the vacant land in the demised premises and not on new buildings built by the petitioner on the vacant land in the demised premises. That the Administrator held that the annual value of the demised premises for levy of property tax on the lessor, should not be enhanced from what was fixed by the Dist. That the Administrator held that the annual value of the demised premises for levy of property tax on the lessor, should not be enhanced from what was fixed by the Dist. Judge in the lessor's appeal, in spite of the fact that many new buildings were subsequently constructed in the demised premises, shows that the lessor was not assessed in respect of such new buildings. As the petitioner had to be assessed separately to property tax in respect of such new buildings built by it. but had not been so assessed, it (the Petitioner) had undoubtedly escaped assessment to property tax on such new buildings. Hence, it was competent for the Corpn. to, issue notices to the petitioner under S. 145 of the act assessing it (the petitioner) to property tax and demanding payment thereof. To sum up, our answer to the two questions referred by the District judge, are as follows : (1) The petitioner copies within the definition of the word 'owner' in s. 3 (26) of the City of, Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and is. liable to be assessed to property tax as the owner- (a) in respect of the new buildings in the properties bearing Nos. 19/1, 19/2 and 19/3, but not in respect of the site on which those buildings stand; and (b) in respect of the buildings (but not the site on which they stand) in the property bearing No. 19a, if those buildings are wholly additions to the old building in the demised premises and were built in the vacant site, but dq not include any portion of the old building (whether in its original condition or rebuilt, renovated or improved) in the demised premises. (2) Under S. 145 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, assessment to property tax and demand for payment thereof could be made on the petitioner on the ground that it (the petitioner) has escaped assessment of such tax, in respect of the buildings of which, it (the petitioner) should be regarded as the owner according to our answer to question No. 1. In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .