Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner was the owner of a property having an extent of 2.128 cents in R.S. No. 104/1 of Taliparamba ansom and desom. He constructed a two storied building therein, that is one having a ground floor and a first floor. He transferred the land and the building thereafter to one Abdulla Kusaliar, who, in turn sold it to the third respondent in the year 1979, and put him in possession. The third respondent added one more floor to the building besides making improvements to it. It is the assessment to building tax of this building as rennovated and added that constitutes the subject-matter of this original petition, the assessment being under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (the Act). 2. So far as the building constructed by the petitioner was concerned, consisting of two floors, its capital value was less than the assessable limit, and it was not therefore liable to be taxed under the Act. It was so stated in Ext. P2 dated 26-3-1988, a communication sent by the assessing authority, namely the Tahsildar, Taliparamba to the petitioner. After the second floor was added by the third respondent, the capital value of the building exceeded the basic minimum of Rs. 75, 000/- and it became assessable to tax by virtue of Sec. 5(3) of the Act. It was so assessed by the Tahsildar by his proceedings Ext. P4 dated 1-2-1988 on a capital value of Rs. 3, 48, 000/- with a liability for tax of Rs. 10, 850/-. The Tahsildar apportioned a major portion of this liability, namely Rs. 8, 988/- to the petitioner with reference to the ground and first floor constructed by him; the balance Rs. 1, 872/- was made payable by the third respondent, for the second floor put up by him. This apportionment was made by the proceedings Ext. P5, but it does not disclose any basis for the apportionment except to mention the portions of the building constructed by the petitioner and the third respondent. The petitioner challenged the assessment and the demand in revision before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Act, but the latter affirmed the assessment by his order Ext. P9. In doing so, he stated that the petitioner was the owner of the building and therefore liable for the tax demanded. The petitioner challenged the assessment and the demand in revision before the District Collector under Section 13 of the Act, but the latter affirmed the assessment by his order Ext. P9. In doing so, he stated that the petitioner was the owner of the building and therefore liable for the tax demanded. He also made reference to the obligation undertaken by the petitioner in his deed of transfer to Abdulla Musaliar, which was reiterated by him in a statement made before the Revenue Inspector, Taliparamba on 15-8-1987, that he will continue to be liable for the tax payable in respect of the two floors of the building constructed by him. The order Ext. P9 was accordingly passed affirming the liability for the tax on the petitioner in the proportion referred to earlier. Petitioner challenges Exts. P4, P5 and P9. 3. The petitioner transferred the property at a time when the assessability or otherwise of the two floors constructed by him had not been finally decided. That decision was rendered later, and his non-liability was declared by Ext. P2 dated 26-3-1988, about ten years after the transfer was effected. It was at that stage, and when the question of his liability was in a nebulous state, that the petitioner had undertaken to make payment of the building tax, if any, payable for the construction made by him. Since however, the capital value of the building constructed by him was within the exempted limit, the petitioner was not liable to pay any building tax for the portions of the building constructed by him. The undertaking to pay building tax, if any, made in the deed of assignment as also before the Revenue Inspector had therefore no effect and did not fasten any liability on the petitioner. The reliance placed on this undertaking by the District Collector, in the order Ext. P9, is misconceived, and without a proper understanding of its true nature or effect or the intention behind it. The intent of the undertaking was only to accept liability for any tax that may be payable for the two floors, at the time of the construction. The petitioner cannot be imputed with any intention to undertake liabilities arising in future by reason of any rennovations or additions made by his transferees, when the construction made by him, itself was free of any liability. 4. The petitioner cannot be imputed with any intention to undertake liabilities arising in future by reason of any rennovations or additions made by his transferees, when the construction made by him, itself was free of any liability. 4. The further question is whether the petitioner is liable because he was once an owner of the building. The building as it stood at the time of its transfer by the petitioner was non-assessable, its capital value being less than the basic assessable minimum. It became assessable only by virtue of the additions made by the third respondent, in the light of Section 5(3) of the Act. If the petitioner was liable for building tax in respect of the first two floors, at the time the construction of that portion of the building was completed, certainly that liability would have continued to subsist despite any transfer made by him, and the tax payable could have been recovered from him. This is because the charge of tax arises and fastens itself as soon as the construction of the building is completed, and there is no provision in the Act ridding an owner of that liability on transfer of the building. Therefore, and if the petitioner had been liable for any tax at the time the construction of the building was completed, he would have continued to be liable to pay that tax even after the transfer. But he was not liable for any amount since the capital value of his construction was less than the minimum assessable amount. The building became assessable only because of the additions made by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the assessment Ext. P4 now made, and the demand pursuant thereto, are related only to the construction made by the third respondent, the basic exemption allowable being for the part of the building constructed by the petitioner. If so, the entire liability for the tax is cast only on the third respondent, and therefore he alone can be made liable for payment of the tax. Any other construction to Section 5(3) will lead to the anomalous and inequitable situation that an owner who was not liable or who was liable only for a small amount of tax will be visited with huge liabilities, thanks to improvements/additions made by a transferee from him. Any other construction to Section 5(3) will lead to the anomalous and inequitable situation that an owner who was not liable or who was liable only for a small amount of tax will be visited with huge liabilities, thanks to improvements/additions made by a transferee from him. He cannot be imperilled in this fashion, which will be the consequence of accepting the construction of Sec. 5(3) adopted by the District Collector. 5. Reliance placed on the definition of 'owner' by the District Collector proceeds on a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Act. I have already mentioned that the petitioner's liability is only for the tax payable for the building constructed by him. He is not liable for any amounts arising consequent on addition/improvements made by the transferees. "Owner" means the real owner of the building, though for purposes of assessment and recovery, the receiver of rent and certain others are also included in the definition of "owner". It is nowhere stated that a quandum owner is an "owner" for the purpose of making him liable for tax arising out of subsequent constructions. 6. The construction made by the petitioner being exempted, and the liability being referable only to the subsequent additions made by the third respondent, the authorities were in error in casting liability on the petitioner, and that too for a major portion of the demand. It is really surprising as to how the assessing authority made the apportionment of the liability. Absolutely no basis is disclosed in the proceedings Exts. P4 or P5 nor has it been detailed in the order Ext. P9. The orders Exts. P4, P5 and P9 are unsustainable in law and opposed to the provisions of the Act. I have no hesitation in holding that they are liable to be quashed despite all the vehemence which the counsel for the third respondent brought to bear in his contention that the petitioner should be fastened with the liability undertaken by him in his deed of transfer. I have already mentioned that the undertaking given by him in the deed of sale and in the statement made before the Revenue Inspector does not have any such effect at all. The original petition is therefore allowed. Exts. P4, P5 and P9, to the extent they cast any liability on the petitioner, are quashed. I have already mentioned that the undertaking given by him in the deed of sale and in the statement made before the Revenue Inspector does not have any such effect at all. The original petition is therefore allowed. Exts. P4, P5 and P9, to the extent they cast any liability on the petitioner, are quashed. The liability cast on the petitioner for the portion of the tax assessed under Exts. P4 and P5 is set aside. It is declared that the third respondent is liable for the entirety of the amount assessed namely Rs. 10, 860/-. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.