Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 359 (KER)

Azeez v. Vaikom Municipality

1992-09-23

PAREED PILLAY

body1992
Judgment :- Petitioners who are the tenants of the premises occupied by them under the landlord challenge the demand by the Vaikom Municipality of the building tax due from the landlord. They contend that they cannot be made liable for the tax payable by the landlord. Petitioners contend that notice was in fact served on the original landlord and after her death in 1988 notice was not served on her legal representatives. It is further contended that the tax revision made in respect of the property (building Nos. 126 and 127 of Ward No.14 of Vaikom Municipality) is in violation of the statutory provision and it is illegal and void. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the legal representative of the landlord had filed appeal against the revision unsuccessfully and therefore the tenants cannot reagitate the matter. There is considerable force in the above contention especially in view of the specific provision under the Act that the building tax paid by the tenant can be very well adjusted by him from the rent due to the landlord. 3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Municipality can demand tax from the tenant when his landlord failed to pay the same. As per Ext.Pll notice, Municipality informed the petitioners that they are liable to pay the tax as the legal representatives of the original landlord have failed to pay it. Under Schedule II Rule 37 of the Act there is specific provision making the tenant liable to pay the tax in case it remains unpaid by the landlord. As per Ext.Pll notice, Municipality informed the petitioners that they are liable to pay the tax as the legal representatives of the original landlord have failed to pay it. Under Schedule II Rule 37 of the Act there is specific provision making the tenant liable to pay the tax in case it remains unpaid by the landlord. Rule 37 states: "If the tax due on account of any building or land remains unpaid in whole or in part at the end of the period specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 32, the commissioner may if the said tax has not remained unpaid for more than twelve months require the occupier for the time being of such building or land to pay the amount within a specified period not being less than fifteen days and if the occupier fails to comply with such requisition, the commissioner may distrain and sell any movable property found on the building or land, and the provisions of the foregoing rule shall, mutatis mutandis apply to all distraints and sales effected under this rule, provided that no occupier shall be liable to prosecution or to a civil suit in respect of any sum recoverable from him under this rule, unless he has wilfully prevented distraint or a sufficient distraint." The Act has safeguarded the interest of a tenant who has paid tax when his landlord has failed to pay the same. S.374 postulates that the tenant who has paid the rent on behalf of his landlord can get it adjusted towards the rent due from him to the landlord. In view of the specific provisions in the Act and Rules, contention that the petitioners who are only the tenants of the building are not in any way liable to pay the tax demanded from them cannot be sustained. 4. Contention of the petitioners that if at all they are liable to pay building tax in the event of the default committed by their landlord the Municipality can at best claim only tax for one year is equally untenable. The Act does not say so. In the absence of any specific provision that the tenant is liable to pay only tax for one year and not accumulated arrears of tax, the aforesaid contention is only to be rejected. The Act does not say so. In the absence of any specific provision that the tenant is liable to pay only tax for one year and not accumulated arrears of tax, the aforesaid contention is only to be rejected. As the tenant is very well given the right to get the amount of tax paid by him to the Municipality from the rent due to the landlord, he is not in any way adversely affected. Section 374 adequately safeguards the interest of the Municipality as well as the tenant. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the demand of tax made to the petitioner is not liable to be quashed. There is no merit in the Original Petition and hence the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.