Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner is a firm doing business in film distribution and exhibition of films. The petitioner-firm pursuant to a bid given by it which was considered to be highest was allotted a particular land measuring 4141 square yards and was granted a lease for 99 years. The land was taken for construction of a cinema house and for the said purpose, a hillock known as `Khandia Bhakar was to be removed so as to make the land worthy of appropriate construction being raised on the same. It was agreed by and between the writ petitioner on the one hand and the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur on the other that all the expenses which are to be incurred by the writ petitioner for removal of the hillock etc. would be reimbursed in accordance with the PWD basis of rates by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. The documents which are at Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were referred to in this connection. It was contended by the writ petitioner that the rock cutting work continued in between September, 1979 and December, 1993 and for this purpose, the writ petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 1,21,620.34. On submission of its claim, the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur reimbursed the writ petitioner and accord- ing to the writ petitioners contention, its imperfect possession could be completed only on 20th December, 1983. Be that as it may, a proper lease deed in between the parties was executed only on 4th September, 1982 and a copy of the said document is at Ex. 4. According to the writ petitioners version, a symbolic possession of the plot was taken on 30th January, 1984 and after removal of debris etc. from the site, the actual work of construction could only be commenced in 1986 and the construction of the cinema house was completed on 1st July, 1988. According to the writ petitioners view, the land was capable of use with effect from 1986 and the building constructed thereupon could be put to use only after 1st July, 1988 and this period could not be taken into account for computation for the purpose of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act. (2). The Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department, Govt. (2). The Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department, Govt. of Raj., Jodhpur issued a notice under Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act, 1964, in answer to which, the writ petitioner denied its liability to pay the tax till it had effective complete possession in respect of the disputed land or till the building thereupon was completed. The respondent No. 5 on the other hand insisted that the writ petitioner-firm was liable to pay land and building tax with effect from 1.4.1979, the effective date of handing over the possession of the said land. (3). The writ petitioner, thereafter, not only put objections challenging the jurisdiction of the Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department, Govern- ment of Rajasthan, Jodhpur to claim the tax as imposed, the writ petitioner ultimately filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 140/88 before this Court. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal under section 16 of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act, 1964 before the Dy. Director (Appellate Authority), which dismissed the appeal on 27.9.1986. A copy of the appellate order is at Ex.7A. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed a revisional application before the Additional Divisional Commission, Jodhpur under section 19 of the Act. During these proceedings, the writ petitioner submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for additional evidence. Alongwith the said application, several documents which were Exhibits 1 to 25 were submitted. The Additional Divisional Com- missioner heard and decided the revisional application on 1.2.1994 and rejected the revisional application. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed a fresh writ application before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2365/94 on 17th May, 1994 challenging these orders. This writ application was later on transferred to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench by virtue of the provisions of the Rajas- than Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. In the meantime, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 140/88, it was decided on 3.8.1995 that the writ application would be dismissed because it has become infructuous, but the stay granted in this writ application would continue in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2365/94 during the pendency of the said writ application. A copy of the said order is at Ex. 10. (4). A copy of the said order is at Ex. 10. (4). The Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench heard the matter in RTT No. 122/95 on 4th August, 1997, but it was apparent that by the order dated 27.8.1997, the writ application stood dismissed. A copy of the order dated 27.8.1997 is at Ex. 13. The writ petitioner, thereafter, moved this writ application impugning the order of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. (5). The main contention averred before us by the writ petitioner was that all the authorities below as also the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal erred in holding that the liability of the writ petitioner to pay the land and building tax commenced from 1.4.1979 which was taken to be the date the writ petitioner put the auction price in respect of the disputed land. The auction actually took place on 6th November, 1978, but the effective date was taken to be the 1st day of the following financial year and that is why 1st April, 1979 was taken to be the actual date from which the liability of the writ petitioner did commence. Thereafter, for each year a separate notice of demand was issued by the appropriate assessing authority and the writ petitioners contention inter-alia was that the effective date could not in any case be earlier than 30.1.1984 when the construction commenced. We agree with the view taken by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal that the land in question became liable to tax from the date effective possession was handed over to the writ petitioner and it could not be construed to be the date from which the writ petitioner commenced the construction of the cinema house building on the disputed land by removing the hillock and preparing the entire land worthy of making construction. The writ petitioner took the business risk in having put his bid by way of auction conducted by the Urban Improvement Trust, entered into an agreement with the Urban Improvement Trust for the said purpose, removed the hillock and made the entire ground worthy of construction. Even though the ground rent was paid by the writ petitioner during the occupation of the writ petitioner prior to the building site being made worthy of construction, we do not think that really the same cause may impediment on the part of the appropriate assessing authority in realizing the land and building tax. Even though the ground rent was paid by the writ petitioner during the occupation of the writ petitioner prior to the building site being made worthy of construction, we do not think that really the same cause may impediment on the part of the appropriate assessing authority in realizing the land and building tax. We do not agree with the submission of the writ petitioner that to come within the mischief of Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act, the land must inherently be incapable of yielding rent or profit which the land in question was not at the relevant time when the physical possession was handed over to the writ petitioner. The fact that the Urban Improvement Trust reimbursed the writ petitioner expenses incurred in the preparation of the appropriate site is also immaterial for the purposes of Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act. (6). The land having been sold by the Urban Improvement Trust, the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Dispoal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 did apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petitioner even though a ``lease becomes owner by virtue of the second proviso to Section 2(10) of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act. (7). We have also perused the letter dated 12.9.1996 which was also shown before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. It was issued by the Department of Urban Development to the Urban Improvement Trust with respect to the land in question stating that the date of actual possession should be deemed to be 25.7.1986. A plain reading of Section 26 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 would show that the registered lease-deed is a documentary evidence of sale and not of possession and as such we can safely construe that the writ petitioner was in possession of the land in question since the date of actual handing over of the possession of the disputed land to him and for this purpose, we have taken it to be 6th of November, 1978, but for effective purpose of computation of land and building tax, it would be 1st day of the following financial year i.e. 1.4.1979. The Tribunal has correctly held that the letter dated 12.9.1996 cannot alter the question of liability of the present writ petitioner as regards the land and building tax vis-a-vis its actual date of delivery of possession in respect of the dispu- ted land nor we are really concerned with the date of symbolic possession which was claimed to be 30.1.1984 followed by the other date which was claimed to be the date of actual possession being 25.7.1986. On the factual aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the situation as regards the liability of the writ petitioner and we do not find any reason to differ with the ultimate findings. (8). We however do not uphold the order of cost of Rs. 5,000/- as passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and we would make the cost easy. But so far as the interest is concerned, we would direct in the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view Section 17-A of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act that the assessee writ petitioner should be liable to pay simple interest on all the arrears amounts at the rate of 15% per annum for the period it continued to make default in the payment. (9). With these modifications, the writ application stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs in the present writ application.