JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to a warrant of attachment market Ex.A being an annexure to the petition. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of an open plot of land measuring 54 ft. x 96 ft. being plot No. 11/12 (part), Nagardas Scheme, New Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Bombay (Western Railway). His father on and from 1-4-1954 let out the said plot on a rent of Rs. 85/- per month to H. Govindjee Co. being the name and style in which the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners (Harilal-the original petitioner) was doing business. There stood some structures on the land which structures were acquired by Harilal. The land together with structures was assessed to property tax payable to the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the "BMC". Certain bills claiming property tax were served upon respondent No. 2's father as also respondent No. 2. These were upon an enhanced rateable value. The same were passed on by the lessor to Harilal. The unpaid property tax arrears mounted to Rs. 63,547.63 ps. As neither Harilal nor respondent No. 2 paid the dues, the BMC issued Ex.A being a warrant of attachment under sections 203 and 207A(3) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act being Bombay Act No. III of 1888 (Act). Earlier, notice had been given to Harilal and that notice was questioned by him in a suit lodged in the City Civil Court at Bombay bearing registration No. 1819 of 1964. In the said suit, Harilal claimed a declaration of not being primarily liable to pay property taxes and an injunction to restrain the BMC from taking any proceedings under section 203 of the Act. The trial Court decreed the suit and the matter was carried to this Court by the BMC vide First Appeal No. 797 of 1973. The appeal was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court-Khatri, J., -and he allowed the appeal substantially, the operative part of the order, to the extent relevant, passed by the said learned Judge reading thus:- "A declaration is granted that the plaintiff (Harilal) is not a person primarily liable within the meaning of section 146 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to pay the property taxes of defendant No. 1 (BMC) in respect of structures as well as the plot in suit on which they stand. The liability of the plaintiff can however legally arise inter alia under section 209 of the Act and can be enforced by the defendant No. 1 in terms thereof". After the decision in the first appeal the Corporation issued the warrant at Ex. A. The attachment is of the land plus structures for the realisation of the proper taxes plus incidental charges. 3. Harilal, now substituted by his heirs, takes exception to Ex. A. Shortly stated, the plea is that property taxes were the primary responsibility of the lessor who in the instant case was respondent No. 2. The non-payment of the property taxes rendered him liable and if at all the BMC could recover the property taxes from him, it was to the limited extent of sub-section (3) of section 209 of the Act. On his part as soon as the warrant of attachment was brought to his notice, he had remitted taxes for one year. The remittances had been refused by the BMC. The BMC could not proceed against the structures and the least that the BMC could do was to proceed against the lessor's interest in the property as also his other properties. 4. The respondent take the stand that the rateable value had been enhanced on account of the letting out by Harilal. Therefore, the property taxes had to be paid by him. Respondent 2 and before him his father had passed on the notice and bills of demand to Harilal. Harilal had taken no action to impugn the enhancement in the rateable value. Neither had he furnished respondent 2 or his father with the necessary data to impugn the enhancements in the rateable value. The BMC was within its rights in proceeding against the property as a whole not excluding the structures testing in Harilal, and after him, the petitioners. 5. The question that arises in this petition depends for resolution upon three sections or parts thereof of the Act. First, is section 146 (2) which enumerates the person primarily liable for property taxes depending upon various circumstances. Here, the property has been let and the person described as primarily liable for payment of property taxes on such premises is the lessor. This is made clear by sub-section (2) of section 146. First, is section 146 (2) which enumerates the person primarily liable for property taxes depending upon various circumstances. Here, the property has been let and the person described as primarily liable for payment of property taxes on such premises is the lessor. This is made clear by sub-section (2) of section 146. Section 209 entitles the BMC to proceed against a person other than the lessor when it lays down as follows :- "209 (1) If the sum due on account of any property-tax remains unpaid after a bill for the same has been duly served on the person primarily liable for the payment thereof and the said person be not the occupier for the time being of the premises in respect of which the tax is due, the Commissioner may serve a bill for the amount on the occupier of the said premises..." But there is an important limitation and that is set out in sub-section (3) of section 209. This sub-section says- "No arrear of property tax shall be recovered from any occupier under this section, which has remained due for more than one year ..." Where the person primarily liable and the occupier both do not pay the taxes, the BMC is entitled to proceed against the immovable property, the property tax where of has remained in arreas. This it can do under section 212. Section 212 says- "Property-taxes due under this Act in respect of any building or land shall, subject to the prior payment of the land-revenue, if any, due to the State Government thereupon be a first charge in the case of any building or land held immediately from the Government upon the interest in such building or land of the person liable for such taxes and upon the goods and chattels, if any, found within or upon such building or land, and belonging to such person; and in the case of any other building or land, upon the said building or land and upon the goods and chattels, if any, found within or upon such building or land and belonging to the person liable for such taxes." The expression "belonging to the person liable for such taxes" is important. What can be proceeded against is the building or land, belonging to one who is liable for the payment of taxes by the statute. What can be proceeded against is the building or land, belonging to one who is liable for the payment of taxes by the statute. We have seen earlier who the person primarily liable for payment of taxes is. In the event property tax is not paid by the lessor the alternatives open to the BMC are to first proceed under section 203 against the person liable for payment of the said tax-such liability being that prescribed by section 146. In the instant case, section 146 (2) (a) is attracted and the person liable for the payment of tax would be respondent No. 2. Secondly, the BMC can proceed under section 209 against the occupier, but the limitation is that the said occupier cannot be forced to pay property tax remaining due for a period in excess of one year. Thirdly, the BMC can proceed against the premises and this right is given to it under section 212. It was argued that the expression "premises" would include building or land and both could be proceeded against for the recovery of the property taxes irrespective of the identity of the person liable for payment of such taxes. In support of this submission reliance is placed upon section 3 (gg) of the Act. I do not see the relevance of this definition when section 212 itself makes it clear that the property which can be proceeded against is that of the "person liable for such taxes". If the liability is cast upon the lessor, the BMC cannot under section 212, proceed against property which vests in the lessee. It was argued that the eventual liability to pay the property taxes is upon the lessee and that the lessor cannot be expected to pay thousands when the rent payable is measly Rs. 85/- per month. I need not go into this aspect of the matter for as said earlier the whole thing is covered by statutory provisions and it is not permissible to important into the decision considerations that are extraneous to the fixing of liability for dues which have remained outstanding. It is difficult to understand why the BMC wanted to proceed against the structures in the face of the judgment of Khatri, J. He had made it clear that the liability did not go beyond the terms of section 209. It is difficult to understand why the BMC wanted to proceed against the structures in the face of the judgment of Khatri, J. He had made it clear that the liability did not go beyond the terms of section 209. By terms, the learned Judge was referring to sub-section (3) of section 209 of the Act. The petition succeeds and hence the order. O R D E R BMC at liberty, if it so desires, to receive a fresh remittance of a year's property tax from the petitioners. Ex. A in so far as it seeks to proceed against the petitioners or their interest in the structures and the land is hereby quashed. Upon a request made by Counsel for the BMC attachment of the property effected under Ex.A shall continue for a period of six weeks as from today. The sum of Rs. 35,000/- deposited in Court by the petitioners shall be refunded upto them after the expiry of the aforementioned period. Rule in these terms made absolute with parties being left to bear their own costs. Prothonotary Senior Master to act on the minutes of this order. Rule made absolute. -----