Judgment :- Petitioner is a partner of Anugraha Builders which is described as a building developer. The firm has constructed a multi-storyed building consisting of twenty two Hats on contract basis, being entrusted to do so by twenty two different persons. The land on which the building was put up belonged to one Vinod Kumar, who entered into an agreement with the firm to develop the land, besides executing a power of attorney empowering the petitioner, as partner of the firm, to enter into contracts with interested persons to construct apartments, and thereafter to effect sale of the undivided proportionate interest in the land to the owners of the apartments. 2. On the basis of the agreement with the owner of the property, the firm obtained permit from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram for construction of the multi storeyed building consisting of twenty two residential flats. The firm undertakes construction works, and accordingly entered into contracts with various persons for construction of flats for them, according to the plan, lay-out and design prepared by it. The outlay on the construction was provided by these persons, and after completion of the construction the undivided interest in the land was transferred to the owners of the flats by-separate deeds of sale, which contained among others, the covenants to be complied with by the vendee in the user of the flats. The petitioner's case is that the case squarely falls within Explanation 2 to S.2(e) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, and each of the flats has to be treated and assessed as a separate building. The third respondent assessing authority did not find his way to accept this contention and completed the assessment Ext. P7 treating the entire building as one unit and levying tax as such. Petitioner challenges Ext. P7. 3. The sole question for decision is whether the assessment of the entire building consisting of twenty two flats as one unit is legal and valid. There is no dispute about the facts of the case. The building is an integral one consisting of twenty two flats. It is a multistoried one. The land belongs to the various flat owners in co-ownership, after the transfer effected to them of the undivided interest in the land, the transfer being effected after the construction of the flats was complete. The building is an integral one consisting of twenty two flats. It is a multistoried one. The land belongs to the various flat owners in co-ownership, after the transfer effected to them of the undivided interest in the land, the transfer being effected after the construction of the flats was complete. What Explanation 2 lays down is that if a building consists of different apartments or flats owned by different persons, and the cost of construction of the building is met by such persons jointly, each apartment or flat shall be deemed to be a separate building. The ingredients of the Explanation are (a) the existence of a building, (b) that building must consist of different apartments or flats, (c) the apartments or flats must be owned by different persons and (d) the cost of construction of the building should be met by such persons jointly. If these ingredients concur, each of the apartments or flats will be deemed to be a separate building, though the building is one structurally and there is an integral connection between the various parts of the building. The Explanation in effect splits on otherwise integral unit or building into multiple buildings, liable to be assessed separately. It would have been otherwise going by the main part of the definition alone. Evidently this has been done to encourage construction of apartments and flats and to alleviate the burden that will otherwise fall heavily by assessing the entire building as one unit. The fact that the undivided interest in the land is transferred only subsequent to the construction of the flats is in my opinion, irrelevant in deciding on the applicability of Explanation 2. The building in mis case therefore satisfies the conditions of Explanation 2 to S.2(c). The assessing authority has not given any reasons in Ext. P7 to deny the benefit of separate assessment to the flat owners in this case, or any justification for assessing the entire building as one unit on the developer. Such assessments without keeping in mind the basic philosophy underlying the Explanation will only act as a damper to such construction activity in the State. 4. P7 to deny the benefit of separate assessment to the flat owners in this case, or any justification for assessing the entire building as one unit on the developer. Such assessments without keeping in mind the basic philosophy underlying the Explanation will only act as a damper to such construction activity in the State. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case, the only conclusion possible, which according to me is also in accord with the legislative intention of providing benefit to flat owners, is that the twenty two flats involved in the building in question should be assessed separately at the hands of the respective owners, and not singly at the hands of the developer. Ext. P7 is unsustainable in law. The original petition is therefore allowed. Ext. P7 is quashed. This will not however preclude the third respondent from assessing the respective flat owners separately in respect of the flats or apartments owned by them. There will be no order as to costs.